The case of the missing DVD

Whoops.

The missing DVD dates from March 2, 2004. It contains a video of the last interrogation session of Padilla, then a declared “enemy combatant” under an order from President Bush, while he was being held in military custody at a U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. But in recent days, in the course of an unusual court hearing about Padilla’s mental condition, a government lawyer disclosed to a surprised courtroom that the Defense Intelligence Agency -- which had custody of the evidence -- was no longer able to locate the DVD.

Those sympathetic to the defense made hay with it, of course. "This is the kind of thing you hear when you’re litigating cases in Egypt or Morocco or Karachi," said John Sifton, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch -- an observation that recalls my recent comparison of the treatment of Padilla and a jailed Egyptian blogger.

The judge seems to think that, legally inexcusable as this is, the DVD isn't particularly relevant to the case. The defense was claiming a pattern of mistreatment, and such a pattern would have shown up on the other taped interrogations. As far as evidence admissable to his actual trial, there is a classified report on the interrogation that describes what went on.

Still, it's unusual. And the timing is pretty interesting. The final interrogation session took place in March 2004. Soon after -- and just before arguments on Padilla's detention were to begin before the Supreme Court -- Padilla finally was given access to lawyers. A year later, hoping to avoid an adverse ruling, the government transferred him back into the regular legal system.

So if there was going to be a session in which they pressed him hard it seems likely it would have been the final one, because they knew the case was about to go before the Supreme Court and they might be forced to give him legal rights.

As I said, it appears to have little bearing on his actual trial. But at minimum it's another example of how we've been quite cavalier with Padilla's rights. Worst case, it's a coverup of actual abuse.

terrorism, civil liberties, Padilla, politics, midtopia

Happy Birthday, Midtopia!

I'm as amazed as any of you, but Midtopia turns one today! Break out the party hats!

It's actually a tiny bit older -- about a week -- but I didn't get Sitemeter installed or get really serious until March 1. The first week was spent tweaking the site and uploading some basic content.

In the past year Midtopia has had about 22,000 visitors, and now averages 2,000 a month. We've been linked to by more than 100 blogs. And the site ads have earned me about $12. ;)

Thanks for making Midtopia part of your day.

politics, midtopia

Hey! Iran! Maybe we should, like, talk

Rather surprising, the administration has reversed itself and agreed to talk to Syria and Iran about the situation in Iraq.

The move was announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in testimony on Capitol Hill, after Iraq said it had invited neighboring states, the United States and other nations to a pair of regional conferences.

Okay, it was grudgingly. And they were boxed in by the Iraqi government, which doesn't share Washington's aversion to actual diplomacy and is scrapping for survival. But better late than never.

Rice says the U.S. doesn't want to be subjected to extortion. But it's silly to think Syria or Iran will lift a finger to help if we don't actually talk to them. Yeah, they're going to want something. But it sure doesn't hurt to listen to what it is -- and make a few demands of our own.

As in the past, the administration's knee-jerk reaction to ideas it doesn't like is to stonewall. But unlike in the past, the administration is showing new willingness to reconsider that reaction in the cold light of morning. A willingness to talk brought a deal in North Korea; an acknowledgement that more troops are needed appears to be bringing some success with the surge. We shouldn't get our hopes up too high over the decision to talk to Iran, but it sure can't hurt.

terrorism, Iraq, Iran, politics, midtopia

What goes around....

Boy, this had to be an uncomfortable moment.

Prominent Missouri businessman and Republican financier Sam Fox, accompanied by heavyweight backers, expected smooth sailing in the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday on his way to confirmation as ambassador to Belgium.

He didn't get it.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., broadsided Fox, criticizing his 2004 donation to the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and questioning Fox's credentials for the job.

"You saw fit to put $50,000 on the line to continue the smear, my question to you is: Why?" Kerry said.

Fox's answer wasn't particularly forceful.

Fox, 77, said he couldn't recall who had asked for the contribution and counted it among thousands of contributions he makes yearly. "When I'm asked, I just generally give," Fox said.

Frankly, that's a bit sad.

One can surely understand Kerry's pique. On the other hand, Fox didn't totally deserve the 30-minute grilling: he was a Republican ATM, not a prime mover behind the Swiftboaters. And his confirmation does not appear to be in jeopardy.

But it does show that there is a price to be paid for personal politics.

Kerry, politics, midtopia

The surge might be working

In the first really encouraging sign for the security crackdown in Baghdad, the number of bodies delivered to the Baghdad morgue in February is down by half compared to January.

In addition, today U.S. forces tested the Iraqi government's committment to a nonsectarian crackdown, sweeping into the Shiite slum of Sadr City and seizing several suspected death squad leaders.

The sign of political resolve is a good thing. The success of an increased troop presence, while predictable, is also a good thing. But the next step is the hard one: sustaining both. We appear to be doing the "clear"; what remains to be seen is whether we can manage the "hold."

Let's hope we can.

Iraq, politics, midtopia

Padilla found competent

Well, actually, he was a pretty incompetent terrorist, if that is what he was. But he was found competent to stand trial.

After three and a half days of an intensely argued hearing, Judge Marcia G. Cooke of Federal District Court rejected the defense lawyers’ request that Mr. Padilla be sent to a hospital for psychiatric treatment so that he could be “healed” from what they said was post-traumatic stress disorder caused during his three years and eight months in military detention.

About what I expected. Now the real battle begins: Cooke next must consider the defense motion to dismiss the charges based on what it says is the government's outrageous conduct.

The conduct was indeed outrageous; the only question is whether it was outrageous enough to compel an acquittal.

terrorism, Padilla, civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Technical difficulties

My Internet connection has been down for most of the day, so posting has been impossible. Hopefully I'll get some stuff up later today. A lot going on: Padilla found competent, Kerry grilling a Swiftboater, the U.S. agreeing to attend talks with Iran and Syria, the Baghdad body count down significantly.... A lousy day for technical problems.

politics, midtopia

Prosecution says Padilla competent to stand trial

A prosecution expert says Jose Padilla is competent to stand trial, contradicting defense claims that his imprisonment amounted to torture that had induced post-traumatic stress disorder in the dirty-bomb suspect.

That's how it goes in these cases. The defense witnesses say he's crazy; the prosecution witnesses say he's not. The judge then has to sort it out.

I'm a bit skeptical of the PTSD claim. Solitary confinement can be mentally arduous, but it has a long history in our prison system, so it's not particularly unusual, and it doesn't routinely drive people nuts. If Padilla were particularly vulnerable it could cause problems, but in that case I would expect it to lead to something more concrete than PTSD, which while real is vague enough that it strikes me as a second-choice diagnosis by a defense team that knew a more serious diagnosis stood no chance.

Anyway, it's a sideshow. I also don't think we tortured Padilla, as the defense claims. But the government's treatment of Padilla has still been outrageous. Holding a U.S. citizen for more than three years without trial should offend everyone. And suddenly releasing him rather than face Supreme Court review of his detention -- and failing to charge him with anything related to the alleged dirty-bomb plot -- was both cynical and a tacit admission that the detention would not stand up to scrutiny.

It's good that Padilla is getting a trial. If he's guilty, he should be put away for a long time. But it should not have taken three years of legal pressure to secure such a basic right for a U.S. citizen. And the fact that so many Americans supported the government is downright disgraceful.

The PTSD debate is central to the defense's motion to have the case dismissed outright because the government's conduct has been so outrageous. I think they're arguing on the wrong basis, relying on showing torture rather than simply noting the blatant unconstitutionality of imprisoning a citizen without trial. And while I'd prefer to have a trial, I will fully understand if the judge agrees with the defense motion. It will be yet one more lesson that basic civil rights cannot be taken away by government fiat, and that trying to do so ends up harming security more than helping it.

I also find it interesting to compare our treatment of Padilla (and the political reaction to it) with the fate of the Egyptian blogger found guilty of criticizing Islam and Hosni Mubarak. Many of the same people who support holding Padilla manage to (rightly) oppose the treatment of the blogger. But who got treated better? At least the blogger was charged, tried and convicted in open court. He had a chance to challenge the evidence against him. And his lawyers are appealing the sentence. He wasn't simply picked up by security agents and thrown into solitary confinement for three years based solely on the government's say-so.

Padilla's alleged crime (not the long-dropped "dirty bomb" accusation, but the ones he is facing trial for) is more serious than simply posting opinions to a blog, of course. But the key word there is "alleged." The fact remains that Egypt -- a country known for repression, torture and other heavy-handed tactics -- treated their suspect far more in accord with American standards than we did Padilla. And that's a sad commentary on how badly the president's overreach on security matters has tarnished the proud legacy of freedom here.

civil liberties, terrorism, Padilla, politics, midtopia

U.S. says it found more Iranian weapons

An arms trove buried in a palm grove in Iraq contains items linked to Iran, the U.S. military says.

The cache included what Maj. Marty Weber, a master explosives ordnance technician, said was C-4 explosive, a white substance, in clear plastic bags with red labels that he said contained serial numbers and other information that clearly marked it as Iranian.

It also contained large numbers of formed copper liners, of the sort needed to make explosively formed projectiles (EFPs), although the origin of those items appeared unknown.

The article makes a big deal about also finding a large amount of clearly non-Iranian material, like PVC pipe made in Iraq and the United Arab Emirates. But that's hardly surprising; innocuous stuff like that would be bought on the open market, then married up with the speciality components needed to make an EFP. In this case, the copper liners appear to have been made specifically to match the size of the PVC. So what you have is an anti-vehicle pipe bomb: Fill a length of PVC with C-4, attach a liner to the top, and you've got an antitank mine.

If the C-4 is clearly linked to Iran, that's another piece of evidence showing Iranian involvement. But it still isn't conclusive -- C-4 is a very common explosive, just like the area is awash in AK-47s and RPGs -- and it still doesn't address the fact that our main opponents in Iraq, the Sunni insurgents, are probably not being supplied by Shiite Iran. Unless the point is that it's the Shiite militias, and not Sunni insurgents, who are now our real enemy.

Meanwhile, still no further word on the Steyr sniper rifles. That story is beginning to look bogus, considering that the provenance of the captured weapons should be easy to check.


politics, midtopia

Homegrown lunacy

I've said it before, and not to pile on, but Michelle Bachmann -- what a nutbar.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann claims to know of a plan, already worked out with a line drawn on the map, for the partition of Iraq in which Iran will control half of the country and set it up as a “a terrorist safe haven zone” and a staging area for attacks around the Middle East and on the United States.

The best part, of course, is that the area of Iraq she identified as part of the zone is on the other side of the country from Iran.

She later said her words were misconstrued, which actually means "boy, was I stupid."

Minnesota's own Cynthia McKinney. Or maybe Katherine Harris. Anyone wanna bet that Mark Kennedy reclaims his old seat in 2008?

And further: Patty Wetterling couldn't beat this fruitcake. Okay, conservative district and all, but maybe it's time for Patty to hang it up. Call it Minnesota's version of Kerry vs. Bush.

Iraq, Iran, Bachmann, Minnesota, politics, midtopia

Iran roundup

As expected, an IAEA report has declared that Iran is in violation of U.N. resolutions regarding its nuclear program, opening the way for more severe sanctions.

Despite uncertainty over Iran's actual capabilities, the report nonetheless said that Iran has or soon will have 1,000 centrifuges for purifying uranium -- short of the 3,000 it expected to have by now (enough to produce one bomb's worth of uranium a year), but more than most outside observers expected.

Update: Here's the report (pdf).

Most everybody, including U.S. officials, say military action isn't imminent. Israel's being a bit mum, but Tony Blair said yesterday that an attack would be a bad idea, finally saying publicly what British officials had been saying privately for some time.

Then there's this:

Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means” next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,” said one.

That's speculation, of course. If true, I'm of two minds on it. It's good not to let the diplomatic dance drag on indefinitely without results. But the end of his term is a fairly arbitrary deadline, and military action might simply hand his successor an ongoing crisis instead of an unresolved dispute. If we have to bomb -- and I'm on record supporting such a move if it proves necessary -- it should be because the talks went nowhere, not because Bush is preparing to leave office.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that our intelligence stinks...

Most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations said.

"They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities.

"Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test."

...but Iran has some questions to answer.

One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake with a batch of unrelated paperwork in October 2005.

That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.

Whatever you think ought to be done about Iran's nuclear program, it seems beyond doubt that they are pursuing weaponry.

nuclear, Iran, politics, midtopia

Congress' next steps on Iraq

In preparation for the next confrontation over Iraq, Congressional Democrats are honing two different proposals that would start scaling back our activities there.

In the House, the plan is to require the military to meet established readiness and training standards that would essentially make a continued large-scale presence in Iraq impossible.

The Senate proposal is more direct, specifically restricting the allowable actions of U.S. troops in Iraq, limiting them to work related to a withdrawal of U.S. forces: direct attacks on Al-Qaeda, training Iraqi units and the like.

Of the two, the Senate has the better plan. The House approach is clever, as it neatly points up the unsustainability of our current troops levels. But it's a somewhat cowardly, back-door way to force a troop withdrawal, and seems to hold plenty of potential for unintended consequences by not forthrightly calling for -- and providing the resources for -- such a withdrawal.

The Senate approach, by contrast, simply commands an orderly end to our mission there. It's simple, direct and clear.

The chance of either plan actually taking effect is minimal. Democrats must overcome Republican opposition in Congress -- including a 60-vote margin in the Senate -- in order to pass them, and then they would face an almost certain veto from President Bush -- even if they are attached to some other piece of "must pass" legislation.

There's another risk for Democrats as well: loss of the Senate. Joe Lieberman is quietly suggesting that he might switch parties if they start pushing an Iraq policy he doesn't like. A lot of that might just be Joe posturing, taking advantage of his swing position to maximize his influence on both sides of the aisle. But he's enough of a true believer in the war that he could be serious. You can be sure any Democratic moves in the Senate will be weighed against the Joe Factor first.

Political machinations aside, are the Democrats doing the right thing by tying the President's hands?

In a general sense, there's nothing wrong with it. Congress has the sole power to declare war, the sole power to fund it and the sole power to truly end it. The President, as commander-in-chief, prosecutes the wars that Congress declares. There has been much blurring of that line over the centuries, but the thing to remember is that Congress, not the President, ultimately decides when and how long to fight. If the people (through Congress) decide they don't want to fight anymore, we should stop fighting.

But is it the right thing to do in Iraq?

Again, in a general sense, yes. The Iraq war was a mistake from the get-go, and incompetently managed besides. It has increased polarization, radicalization and terrorism in the Mideast and worldwide. It has cost a staggering amount of money, political capital, global influence and blood. It has tied up resources better used elsewhere, and divided the American electorate at a time when we needed unity to ensure continued support for the long struggle with terror. Correcting such a blunder is a good thing, and necessary.

"But that means the terrorists win!" I hear war supporters say. Nonsense. Iraq is one battle in a much larger war, and a smart general knows when to cut his losses. Leaving Iraq does not mean abandoning the fight against terror; it means redeploying our resources to more effective fronts, while removing our inflammatory presence from Iraqi soil.

Had war-supporter logic prevailed in World War I, they would have insisted we keep pouring troops into the Dardanelles campaign, lest we "let the Turks win" and show we can be beaten. In reality, of course, the Allies recognized the campaign as a disaster and pulled the plug -- and went on to win the war anyway.

So in a general sense, Congress needs to be prepared to bring our involvement in Iraq to an end. But in specific, their timing is a little premature. Bush's "surge" is just getting under way. He deserves a chance to show it can work, because all things being equal winning in Iraq is preferable to not winning. After all, the logic for withdrawal is not that we don't want to win; it's that winning in any sense meaningful to our national security appears unlikely and reinforcing failure is stupid.

So prepare the bills. But stay the hand until we see the results of the surge. And if it fails (as, alas, it probably will), then report out the Senate version. If we're going to pull the plug, do it responsibly, directly and openly.

terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Getting my pantsuit in a wad

Suddenly, pantsuits are everywhere.

Washington Post: "To Net-roots sites such as Daily Kos, Firedoglake and Crooks and Liars, (Rep. Ellen Tauscher) is Lieberman in a pantsuit."

P.J. O'Rourke: "Hillary Clinton is Hugo Chavez in a pantsuit."

Peggy Noonan:" They think (Hillary) is a tough little termagant in a pantsuit."

Glenn Beck: "(Cindy Sheehan) is practically Gandhi in a pantsuit."

NewsMax: "It would be even more ironic if conservative news outlets helped Hillary win the White House by pretending she's suddenly morphed into Gen. Patton in a pantsuit."

Hot Air: "(Clinton is) a black hole in a pantsuit." (reader comment)

Christian Science Monitor: "To some voters, (Clinton) is a ruthless Machiavelli-in-a-pantsuit...."

The New Republic: "(Clinton) is Goliath in a pantsuit."

The Jewish World Review: "Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco? She's Ralph Nader in a pantsuit."

The list goes on. The phrase is so common that there's actually a right-wing acronym for Hillary, PIAPS, which stands for "pig in a pantsuit."

The most interesting thing is that as far as I can tell, it's used solely to describe powerful Democratic women. No describing Olympia Snowe as "A RINO in a pantsuit." No calling Condoleeza Rice "A Klingon in a pantsuit." The best I could find was Vanity Fair's James Wolcott calling Laura Bush "just another warden in a pantsuit." But that's hardly fair, considering Mrs. Bush isn't a prime example of a powerful woman.

Second, what's the motivation? Is it an attempt to imply a lack of femininity, to suggest that they are mannish or lesbian or what have you? Is it simply a way to make a cross-gender metaphor? Is there some fascination with pantsuits that I have missed?

In any case, as the list above demonstrates, the phrase has become a cheap cliche and really needs to be dropped. You may think it sounds clever, but trust me: it doesn't. It belongs on the scrap heap along with "smart as a whip", "raining cats and dogs", "Where's the beef?" and all the others.

The picture, by the way, is of Clinton meeting a 6-9 Nevada state Assemblyman, Harvey Munford.

gender, cliches, pantsuit, politics, midtopia

World roundup

We'll finish off the evening with a quick roundup of notable events.

IRAQ
The British will cut their troop presence in Iraq in half -- events permitting -- by the end of the year. Though apparently Prince Harry will still be going there if the Daily Mirror is to be believed.

GUANTANAMO
A federal appeals court has ruled (in a decision that will be appealed to the Supreme Court) that Gitmo detainees can't challenge their internment in U.S. courts, thanks to the Republican Congress stripping that power from them last year. They can thus be held indefinitely until they are tried before the flawed military commissions that Bush has set up. Congressional Democrats have said they will revisit the commission law to fix the most glaring problems. If they plan to do that, they should get to it; it's an affront to liberty to hold people for years without charge, or try them in a court that doesn't afford them full rights.

IRAN
Iran, in a mirror image of recent U.S. charges, has accused the United States of supplying Sunni militants who last week car-bombed a bus of Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Their claim comes complete with bullet cartridges bearing U.S. markings. Does this prove U.S. involvement? No. But it's interesting to note that the Iranians have roughly as much evidence backing up their claim as we have of Iranian involvement in Iraq. And just as it's very likely Iran is meddling in Iraq, would anyone be surprised to discover that we're supporting anti-Iran militants? That is not a reason to turn a blind eye to Iranian meddling; but it is a reason to look askance at the moral outrage the White House has tried to generate over the issue. Meanwhile, there are no updates on the sniper rifles allegedly supplied by Iran. The smoking gun remains elusive.

Separately, Iran is making noises about stopping its enrichment program -- if Western countries do the same. The non-offer comes a day before the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to issue a critical report that will trigger even harsher U.N. sanctions against the country. Iran once again demonstrates it is not serious about negotiating, and the IAEA report will show that it has expanded, rather than slowed, its enrichment activities. The question is what sort of measures Russia and China will allow the U.N. to take.

MITT ROMNEY
Mitt Romney is somewhat ironically attacking John McCain for being inconsistent on abortion. For my money, though, the funniest thing is that Mitt's guy in charge of conservative outreach is named Marx.

SOMALIA
Finally, the U.N. approved an 8,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force for Somalia, a measure that allows the AU to deploy troops and relieve the Ethiopians that have been propping up the provisional government there. It remains to be seen if such a force will be enough to stop the spiraling violence in Somalia, but it demonstrates the renewed international attention being paid to that country after years of neglect. Let's hope they pull it off.

Gitmo, Romney, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, politics, midtopia

New Jersey grants gay civil unions

New Jersey becomes the third state to allow either civil unions or marriage.

Meanwhile, a Michigan court ruled earlier this month that the state's recent gay-marriage ban also outlaws domestic-partner benefits to government employees, including those who work for public universities. The logic: health benefits cannot be provided if doing so is based on treating same-sex relationships similar to marriage.

And so while New Jersey expands freedom and fairness, Michigan trips into the minefield of litigation and unintended consequences caused by a hastily passed, too-broadly drawn constitutional amendment that singles out a minority for discrimination. Another 20 states with similar bans probably will face similar troubles -- unless they take the route Alaska took and decide the law doesn't apply to such benefits.

Of course, some people are happy that this will hurt gay families. Take Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association's Michigan chapter:

“For the average Michigan taxpayer whose family does not receive government-paid insurance of any kind, this was a victory because Michigan taxpayers will no longer be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships among government workers as if those relationships are equal or similar to marriage,” he says.

That logic is so disingenuous, not to mention mean-spirited, I don't even know where to begin.

The AFA, by the way, also warns against witchcraft, specifically attacking a middle school newspaper for publishing an 8th-grade girl's article on her Wiccan aunt and Wiccan beliefs. This is a little ironic, considering they have a "religious freedom" section of their Web site where they purport to stand up for religious expression.

Such routine hypocrisy aside, it'll be interesting to see if there is a second wave of constitutional amendments amending the gay-marriage bans. I wouldn't expect outright repeals, but at the very least we might see language exempting domestic partner benefits or allowing civil unions. And the lessons of these first states -- moral as well as legal -- will likely slow the rush to adopt similar measures in the remaining states.

I stand by my prediction that in 20 years, the country will largely look back on this brouhaha and ask "what was the big deal"? Gay marriage laws will go the way of sodomy laws, falling state by state until the Supreme Court repeals the last few holdouts. Because manifest unfairness rarely survives for long, even when it involves something as visceral as homosexuality.

gay marriage, politics, midtopia

Right-wing silliness, continued

More "teachers are terrorists" rhetoric, this time from Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity.

I get Boortz's point, and I agree that the NEA can be part of the problem in some places. I also agree that we should be worrying relatively more about education than about terrorism. But "worse than Al Qaeda?" Sheesh.

education, politics, midtopia

Democrats gone wild

I've been slamming Republicans fairly heavily over the last few days. Time to even up the score a little.

In Fredricksburg, Md., 23-year-old Andrew Stone went to the home of a person listed on a Republican Web site. He argued with the person and his two roommates, then attacked them.

We'll presume he was a Democrat, though that's not clear from the story.

In case any of you need the reminder: don't go to people's homes and attack them for their political beliefs. It makes everyone cranky.

politics, midtopia

Pelosi plane update

The "Pelosi One" plane scandal was always about nothing, and died despite a week of Republican flogging.

Now the main Republican flogger, Florida Rep. Adam Putnam, admits he had no actual evidence to back up his claims -- and he doesn't care.

Putnam now acknowledges he had no personal knowledge of any Pelosi request. He said he was commenting on an anonymously-sourced story in The Washington Times and additional coverage from CNN.

"This was a classic case where the media got out in front of us," Putnam said. "Did we jump on it? Yes."

And he is unapologetic about that. He calls the Pelosi plane story, whatever its legitimacy, "the first break [Republicans] have had from the media in driving our message since before the Mark Foley story broke."

Got that? Republicans' "first break... in driving our message" was a made-up nonscandal.

What exactly is that message, again? Because surely "we're a bunch of liars" isn't it.

Pelosi, Adam Putnam, politics, midtopia

Another terror myth exploded

Terrorists want Democrats to win, right?

Not always, apparently.

A New York man accused of trying to help terrorists in Afghanistan has donated some $15,000 to the House Republicans' campaign committee over three years.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari pleaded not guilty Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to charges that include terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and money laundering.

From April 2002 until August 2004, the man also known as "Michael Mixon" gave donations ranging from $500 to $5,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

Does this mean terrorists support Republicans? Of course not. For one thing, you'd have to examine the motive behind the donations, which could include such things as buying protection, buying access or simply trying to look innocuous.

But it does point up the intellectual emptiness of pointing to such behavior -- or the fact that both terrorists and Democrats say mean things about President Bush -- and claiming an ideological link. At risk of running afoul of Godwin's Law, Hitler disliked abstract art; does that make everyone who hates abstract art a Nazi? No.

When you get down to the facts of this case, by the way, it appears that Alishtari is little more than a scammer who was involved in suspicious money transfers for financial reasons, not ideological ones. So maybe terrorists don't support Republicans; maybe they've got the thieves and liars vote instead....

Alishtari, terrorism, politics, midtopia

The genetics of altruism

Are humans innately good, or innately selfish?

That's a fundamental question when it comes to discussing morality, law and society. If humans are innately selfish, then the only way society functions is by the majority forcing everyone to behave, through tools of social control like government, religion and culture. Without such control, the argument goes, society would disintegrate into a Darwinian anarchy where the strongest reigned through force and cruelty.

In addition, this worldview lends weight to the idea that only an extrahuman authority -- such as God -- can effectively impart a moral code, for if humans are naturally immoral or amoral they simply would not bother to develop one. In such a view, religion is not merely a tool for enforcing whatever society defines as morality; it is an essential source of morality that transcends society.

If humans are generally good, however -- if they are hardwired for altruism, for example, or if our social nature makes us seek approval, and render cooperation and compromise common and successful survival strategies -- then the importance of religion and tradition and government all shrink. They are still useful as founts of distilled wisdom and as a way to enable or compel group behavior. But they are not in and of themselves a necessary component of virtue.

The reality, of course, is as variable as the human experience. Like any other distribution, human behavior follows the bell curve. So even if most humans are innately good, there will be some that misbehave. And if our natural state is despotic anarchy, there would still be a few selfless saps trying to help others. Throw in other considerations, like love of family or economic ties, and the picture becomes more muddied still.

That said, a couple of recent developments shed some interesting light on the subject.

Last year, molecular researchers identified what they called an altruism gene that is present in almost all living things. It's not a gene that makes people give to charity; it's a gene that appears to explain why some cells in a multicellular organism give up their ability to reproduce -- and thus commit genetic suicide -- in order to help the organism as a whole function better. Their conclusion? The function arose for a separate purpose -- letting cells shut off temporarily useless processes to conserve energy -- and was then co-opted by evolution in multicell organisms, in something of a biological bait-and-switch. The resulting combination was so successful that all later organisms retained it.

Another study around the same time found that altering a single gene in a species of bacteria turned resource "cheaters" into cooperative organisms. Further, the genetic change occurred naturally in response to environmental stress. In other words, the stress apparently promoted a genetic change that favored cooperation.

Couple that with demonstrated examples of altruism in the animal kingdom, and it's clear that altruism is compatible with evolution.

If altruism can arise spontaneously on the cellular level and among lower animals, it seems obvious that it can arise naturally at the behavioral level of intelligent species, which have an advantage that bacteria do not: the ability to calculate the costs and benefits of cooperation.

It could start out as loyalty to a family group, wherein a parent, for example, sacrifices itself to save its mate or offspring and thus protect its genetic legacy. As populations grow that definition could be expanded to include clan or tribe, based on a reciprocal economic calculation: I'll come to your defense if you come to mine, increasing our overall chances of survival.

Society would eventually develop ideals and traditions that enforce such altruism, allowing it to apply to larger and larger groups. It would confer approval, admiration and reproductive success on those who are generous or take risks in its defense. As social creatures we are especially susceptible to "doing what is expected" and seeking the approval of our fellows.

And that, in fact, appears to be the case, as a more recent experiment shows.

The experiment hooked up college students to MRIs and had them make decisions about whether or not to give money to various charities. What they found was that deciding to give money produced activity in two different areas of the brain: the part responsible for social attachment, and the same pleasure centers stimulated by food, drugs, money and sex. In other words, acting altruistic made them feel good, as well as involving a bit of social calculation.

Such altruism may be learned rather than innate; the study doesn't attempt to establish a root cause. But it demonstrates that good behavior does not necessarily need ongoing external enforcement. People do not have to be coerced or scared into doing good; they simply need to be attached to a society or family group that prizes such behavior.

This also demonstrates that altruism can in fact be quite selfish. Altruistic acts can lead to very real individual benefits, such as increased reproductive success, enhanced social stature or simply feeling good about oneself.

But such benefits must be weighed against the potential cost. At the extreme, altruism is detrimental: the warrior who is killed in combat never gets a chance to enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. He may still consider the risk worth it, but how can we explain the person who deliberately sacrifices himself to save others, like the soldier who throws himself on a grenade?

In some cases, even such extreme decisions can be selfish, genetically speaking. A suicide bomber, for instance, knows that his family will probably be taken care of. A soldier's family gets a government pension and the thanks of a grateful nation.

But absent those scenarios, I think such examples demonstrate the power of societal expectations. People raised in a given society often internalize that society's values. The stronger their attachment to the society, the stronger the internalization. Further, people who live when others die often experience "survivor's guilt." Many people talk about how they "couldn't live with themselves" if they behaved in a way society disapproves of. The cost-benefit analysis is different for every individual, of course, but many people would apparently prefer to risk near-certain death than live with the knowledge that they chickened out, or let others die so that they could live.

So it turns out the question I posed at the beginning of this article is a bit misleading, because in many cases being good and being selfish are the same thing. But overall I think the evidence points to morality and altruism being biologically based but socially defined. Religion is a part of society, and thus contributes to defining society's morality just like any other philosophical system. Religion is also a singularly powerful social tool for enforcing that morality -- though like any tool it can also be used for ill. But morality can flourish absent religion, just like religion can flourish absent morality.

evolution, ethics, genetics, morality, religion, politics, midtopia