Thursday, May 13, 2004

A Pleasant Evening In her article today on Rumsfeld, Elisabeth Bumiller reports: For now, Mr. Rumsfeld has received a powerful show of support from President Bush, who last week authorized his aides to say that he had chastised the defense secretary for his handling of the scandal, but this week stood by Mr. Rumsfeld's side at the Pentagon to announce that the defense secretary was doing a "superb" job. Mr. Bush and his wife, Laura, also attended a small dinner at the home of Mr. Rumsfeld in the graceful, old-world Kalorama section of Washington on April 30, the first day the president spoke publicly of his revulsion over graphic photographs of the abuse. Guests at the dinner, who included Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said that the president and his defense secretary appeared relaxed in each other's company. "They seemed fine," said Mr. Sessions, a member of the Armed Services Committee. He added that he heard no talk at the dinner about the pictures or the scandal, and that conversation focused on easier topics, such as a speech that Mrs. Bush was to make the next day at a college commencement in Florida. Ah, yes, April 30. Not much in the papers to discuss over hors d'oeuvres. Postscript: The original title of Bumiller's article (the title that appears in the print addition) is: "Stolid Rumsfeld Soldiers On, But Weighs Ability to Serve." That title has been changed to: "Rumsfeld Preserves Bearing, but Weighs Ability to Serve." (See link). I guess someone in the Pentagon didn't like being called "stolid." 4:19:45 PM    comment [] Compare [1] "Remarks by the Vice President to Employees of the Wal-Mart Distribution Center" (Bentonville, Arkansas, May 3, 2004): This is one of our nation's great companies, and one of the most familiar names in all of America. The story of Wal-Mart exemplifies some of the very best qualities in our country -- hard work, the spirit of enterprise, fair dealing, and integrity. [2] "U.S. Discloses Wal-Mart Fine of $3.1 Million" (NY Times, May 13, 2004): The Justice Department said on Wednesday that Wal-Mart had agreed to pay $3.1 million in fines for violating the Clean Water Act at 24 sites in nine states. The fine is the second against Wal-Mart in three years for failing to manage storm-water runoff and the largest penalty every assessed against a company for this kind of infraction. Wal-Mart was fined $1 million in 2001. [3] "Wal-Mart audit shows labor abuses" (Reuters, January 13, 2004): An internal audit warned top executives at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. three years ago that employee records at 128 stores showed extensive violations of child-labor laws and state regulations, the New York Times said on Tuesday. [Thanks to CH for #3.] 3:52:15 PM    comment [] Department of Justice According to an above-the-fold article in today's NY Times, there's a bit of a divide between the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. over the harsh, coercive techniques used by the C.I.A. in Al Qaeda terrorism investigations. These techniques were authorized by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by . . . the C.I.A. The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees. [snip] The methods employed by the C.I.A. are so severe that senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have directed its agents to stay out of many of the interviews of the high-level detainees, counterterrorism officials said. The F.B.I. officials have advised the bureau's director, Robert S. Mueller III, that the interrogation techniques, which would be prohibited in criminal cases, could compromise their agents in future criminal cases, the counterterrorism officials said. Guess whose side the Justice Department took? Let me fill in the ellipsis in the first quoted paragraph: These techniques were authorized by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. The Justice Department was quite helpful, in fact, in advising government officials how to violate the spirit of the law without violating its letter: The C.I.A. has been operating its Qaeda detention system under a series of secret legal opinions by the agency's and Justice Department lawyers. Those rules have provided a legal basis for the use of harsh interrogation techniques, including the water-boarding tactic used against Mr. Mohammed. One set of legal memorandums, the officials said, advises government officials that if they are contemplating procedures that may put them in violation of American statutes that prohibit torture, degrading treatment or the Geneva Conventions, they will not be responsible if it can be argued that the detainees are formally in the custody of another country. As Eric Muller notes, the Justice Department may have lied to the Supreme Court during recent arguments concerning detainees, when it denied that the executive branch sanctions torture. [link via Atrios.] Now I know why the DOJ's seal (see picture) has an eagle instead of a balance scale. One final question: just how secret were the C.I.A. interrogations? So far, the agency has refused to grant any independent observer or human rights group access to the high-level detainees, who have been held in strict secrecy. Their whereabouts are such closely guarded secrets that one official said he had been told that Mr. Bush had informed the C.I.A. that he did not want to know where they were. Postscript: My, how time flies ... [1] "Curtain for nude statue of justice" (Jan. 30, 2002): It is only one breast and it is supposed to be art but for the United States Attorney-General, John Ashcroft, it was apparently one breast too many. Reports suggested this week that Ashcroft had grown tired of giving briefings at the US Justice Department in front of two naked statues, one known as "Minnie Lou". He has now ordered that tasteful curtains be used to cover the offending feature. [2]"Abuse Photos Repel Members of Congress" (May 13, 2004): Among the new photos and videos shown to lawmakers in secure rooms on Capitol Hill were those of Iraqi women who apparently were forced to expose their breasts ... One photo depicted an Iraqi woman undressed to the waist, while another showed a woman lifting her shirt up. "They were not smiling, believe me," [Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse] Campbell said. 3:00:48 PM    comment [] Geneva Conventions Let it not be said that we don't care about the Geneva Conventions. According to Donald Rumsfeld, government lawyers have advised against releasing more photos of abused prisoners (prisoners abused in violation of the Geneva Conventions), because it would violate a Geneva Convention against showing images of prisoners that could be construed as degrading. Postscript: Kos reminds those who do not see a problem in violating the Geneva Conventions that they have been ratified by Congress and are thus the law of the land. [Not that federal law or the Constitution has ever restrained the Bush adminstration from acting.] 2:12:52 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2004 David V. Johnson. Last update: 6/1/04; 12:53:04 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.