It’s quiet in Michigan today.  The storm has passed.

Not the winter storm, mind you — that is still hard at work, blanketing the state with inch after inch of snow.  But as the storm rages outside, Michiganders are much calmer.  For the first time in weeks, they can stop holding their breath.  There will be a bailout — or at the very least a respite for the Big Three and their workers.

Others, such as TomP at DailyKos, have done a terrific job summarizing the terms of the bailout deal, and the Detroit papers all have statements from auto-execs, union leaders, and Mayor Ken Cockrel, as well as editorials expressing relief, so I will spare you from restating their remarks.

Senator Debbie Stabenow and Congressman John Dingell have (rightly, in my opinion) denounced the severe concessions demanded of the United Auto Workers by the Administration.  But most folks here aren’t parsing the details or hemming and hawing over the concessions — at least for now.

The reason is simple.

As the Congressional bailout bill failed and President Bush decided to take his sweet time in deciding to take action a real sense of impending doom descended on this region — a sense that a crisis much worse than a winter storm was coming our way.

Michiganders know how to dig out from a blizzard.  But over the past few years, we’ve had to learn how to dig out of an economic storm.  Unlike most of the country, we’ve been in a recession since at least 2001.  For decades, excess and shortsightedness had left the state far too reliant on a single industry — one that has proven resistant to the change and evolution needed to stay competitive in an era of global trade, declining labor costs, and rapidly fluctuating gas prices.  In response, we’ve been trying to diversify the state’s industrial base and push the Big Three to modernize.

In short, we’ve were starting to turn the corner, and were doing everything in our power to maintain momentum.

Then came the collapse of the global financial system and credit markets the world over.  Despite having nothing to do with derivatives trading or mortgage-backed securities, the auto-industry was hit with the  double whammy of high gas prices and unavailable credit.  All of a sudden, Michigan’s attempted comeback stalled, but we remained hopeful that we would make it through. . .eventually.

Then the Senate’s rejected the auto bailout, in large part because of the opposition of self-interested Southern Senators whose supposed opposition to the UAW masked the fact that their own states benefitted from foreign automakers having built non-union plants in their states.

As a result, Michiganders started to wonder whether an economic hurricane was going to decimate tens of thousands of families.  Not only did Michigan face the very real possibility that all of our work to turn the state around would be lost, but the long-term viability of both our home-grown industry, and, quite simply, our homes themselves, were at risk of falling apart right before our eyes.

Have you noticed the dire and exasperated tone of Michigan elected officials lately?

Given the fact that these near catastrophic events were poised to take place during the holidays, when the safety and security of your family is paramount in the minds of all, one could excuse Michiganders of a little exasperation and fear.  The tension throughout the state has turned this usually festive season into a time no one will want to remember for a long time.

So while Michiganders are by nature a proud, yet humble, and hard-working people, the palpable emotion throughout the state over the past weeks was one of complete powerlessness.   We began to believe that our future was no longer in our hands.  Not only that, but it seemed as though those in a position to decide our fate had no great affection for our state, or the people who call it home.

So that is why this morning’s news has been met with simple, yet deeply heartfelt relief.  No one is under any illusions about the need for drastic change, and we all know we are not yet out of the woods.

But today, on a quiet snowy day, Michigan can finally stop fearing the worst, and can let out one big sigh of relief.

Photo — Diego Rivera, “Detroit Industry,” by Derek Farr via Flickr, used under a CC 3.0 license.

Related posts

• Death Knell?
• The Big Three Bailout: The View from Michigan
• Michigan Diary: Unfree(p) and Unfair
• The Real Face of the Big Three Bailout
• The Bailout Bill: A Threat to Constitutional Rule

Bush is going to give some cash to the auto companies to stave off their collapse.  I’ll have more on this later, but being the season and all, Molly and I had planned to go shopping and get our Christmas tree today.

So expect light blogging — be back later.

Related posts

• The Bailout Bill: A Threat to Constitutional Rule
• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• Detroit Exhales
• Torture, Bailouts, and the Theory of a Unitary Executive
• Thought of the Morning

Our friends at Dipnote haven’t had a very good week.

The good news is that they’re trying some new things, including Twitter.  The bad news is that they’ve let Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy Colleen Graffy tweet her vacation diplomatic mission to Iceland and Croatia.  As Al Kamen noted in WaPo today, Graffy has sounded more like an ugly American than a government official.  Here are a few of Graffy’s greatest tweets:

in Boston now boarding flight to Iceland! forgot gym clothes, forgot bathing suit (possible Blue Lagoon visit).advice: don’t pack in 30 min 7:51 PM Dec 6th from web

Arrived at Reflavik airport–beautiful! Clever–u can buy duty free AFTER landing–big shop open while u wait for luggage. quel marketing! 4:04 AM Dec 7th from web

Renting a bathing suit and getting ready to take the plunge into the geothermal hot springs and smear silica mud on my face 11:53 AM Dec 7th from mobile web

Small world–ran into DCM Neil Klopfenstein just before plunge into Blue Lagoon. Bathing suit not my sartorial choice for first meet! Ack! 4:42 PM Dec 7th from web

I’ve been accused of TMI/oversharing:http://tinyurl.com/5vektk (scroll down 4 my response) shld diplomats stick to policy twitter & cens …… about 12 hours ago from web

Ya think?  Sheesh.

For most of today, Graffy has been tweeting on the fallout from the Kamen piece.

In fairness to Graffy, she is doing what I have argued Dipnote needs to be:  more spontaneous.  As she notes, “this is why diplomats stay off the record and boring.”

That’s true, but there’s a big difference between tweeting about your rented swimsuit and going on the record to discuss U.S. policy.  At no point does Graffy do more that describe what she’s doing.  Yes, that’s part of what Twitter is about, but it’s also about sharing opinions.  Graffy never makes a policy statement — in fact, she doesn’t even explain why she made the trip in the first place.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the Dipnote blog hasn’t been having a good run of it either.  A few days ago, they actually asked the following question:

In recent months, there has been talk of Iran’s nuclear capability. So much of our diplomacy centers on the acquisition of nuclear technology.

Do nuclear weapons make the world more or less safe?

Dr. Strangelove, white courtesy phone, please.

I know part of the reason for Dipnote is to provoke dialogue.  And blogs should encourage debate.  But isn’t this kind of, sort of, just maybe, AN INCREDIBLY STOOOOPID QUESTION?  Setting aside the insane notion that nuclear weapons somehow might make us safer, do we really want others to infer that the United States government thinks that nuclear weapons might make the world safer?

And what were they thinking when they wrote that U.S. diplomacy “centers on the acquisition of nuclear technology”?  I think they just might of meant preventing others from acquiring nukes.  At least I hope they did.

You have to wonder where the vetters were for that one.

Maybe they were too busy with this post, from David J. Kramer, the current Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which obviously has been carefully edited to completely squeeze it of all spirit.

Today is International Human Rights Day, the date sixty years ago when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have the privilege of serving as the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, so this occasion is especially meaningful to me and to the men and women in my office. We see it as an opportunity to reflect on and rededicate ourselves to the work of protecting and promoting the rights enshrined in the Declaration. President Bush and Secretary Rice have made the promotion of human rights a priority not just for my bureau, but for the entire State Department and our embassies around the world.

Note the careful parsing here:  Dubya and The Condi have made human rights a priority — for DRL, State, and embassies.  But not, apparently, in the United States or facilities under its control.

In other words, go out to other countries and talk about their human rights record.  But for god sakes, whatever you do, don’t mention torture.  Or rendition.  Or interrogation.  Or indefinite detention.  Oh wait — that’s wrong.  You can mention them, just don’t bring up our own policies.

I have not had the opportunity to meet Kramer, but I do feel bad for him.  From what I’ve heard, he’s a good guy trying to do a job that is tough even in normal times.  And under Bush, he has to go out and preach the gospel of human rights to people who believe that America has no moral standing.

It’s not his fault the Administration he currently serves is run by individuals who may have committed war crimes.  It’s not his fault that many around the world view the United States as part of the problem and not part of the solution.  It’s not his fault that he must go out and tell other countries to “do as we say and not as we do.”  And it isn’t his fault that he still must pretend that none of that is true.

Look on the bright side, though.  At least he didn’t write about his swim attire.

Related posts

• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• The Human Rights Secretary of State?
• State Department Watch: The Bizarro Blog
• State Department Watch: Fed up with Bush?
• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes

Today is the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  If you’re not familiar with it, here’s a short (and extraordinarily cool) primer, via the Human Rights Action Center:

The Declaration’s opening sentence is “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”  I think that pretty much sums it up.

Ten years ago, I had the privilege of helping to organize the White House’s celebration of the 50th anniversary.  President and Mrs. Clinton attended, as did numerous human rights activists.  And while the Clinton Administration’s human rights record was not perfect, it was far better than what we have now and, for that matter, one of the best ever. (Full disclosure:  I served in the Clinton Administration as Chief of Staff in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, so I’d like to acknowledge that I’m not unbiased on this matter.)

Among the events that day was a ceremony awarding the first-ever Eleanor Roosevelt Awards, which were created by President Clinton to honor Americans who had made major contributions to the cause of human rights both at home and abroad.  Those honored during his term included John Lewis, Bette Bao Lord, Burke Marshall, Dorothy Thomas, Robert Bernstein, and the late Fred Cuny.

Since 2001, the Human Rights Day commemoration has taken place at the State Department.  President Bush ended the tradition of celebrating Human Rights Day at the White House.  As far as I’m aware, the Bush Administration never conferred the Eleanor Roosevelt Award.

Anyone want to guess as to the reasons why?

It’s often overlooked because of the other crises we face (economy, two wars, etc.), but the reality is that President-elect Obama must spend considerable time over his Administration dismantling the torture regime (and rendition regime and indefinite detention regime and. . .) created by his predecessor.  It’s going to take a lot of time and effort, but it’s crucial not only because we as a nation need to return to our ideals, but also because the rest of the world will want to know that we practice what we preach.

Part of that effort is naming and shaming those responsible.  But part also is returning to remembering days like today, where we can recognizing the ideas and values that have helped shape this nation, as well as the role of courageous Americans in ensuring that we live up to our core principles.

Here’s hoping that President-elect Obama restores the tradition of a White House ceremony on Human Rights Day, including the Eleanor Roosevelt Awards.  And let’s also hope that among the earliest honorees are those who have, for the past eight years, fought so courageously to oppose and expose the Bush Administration’s war crimes.

Related posts

• The Human Rights Secretary of State?
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• Obama on Human Rights: We Must Practice What We Preach
• Why SCOTUS Should Hear the Al-Marri Case
• What She Said

Steve Benen over at The Washington Monthly has a brief piece on another effort to rein in the Bush Administration’s trampling of the separation of powers.  For the past eight years, Dick Cheney met regularly with the Senate Republican caucus, which reversed decades of Senate policy.  Yesterday, however, the Senate Democratic Caucus decided to exclude incoming Vice President Joe Biden from their weekly meetings.  As Benen notes,

Were it not for the last eight years, this wouldn’t be newsworthy at all. Indeed, it’d be entirely normal. For generations, administrations have tried to exert influence over the Senate by inserting the Vice President into his caucus’ affairs, ostensibly as a de facto member of the chamber. And for generations, senators have pushed back, citing the separation of powers and the need for checks and balances.

Over the last eight years, the model has been turned on its head. Whereas every V.P. has tried to exert undue influence over the Senate, the Republicans of the Bush era are the first to actually accede to an administration’s demands. Cheney attended the weekly Senate Republican strategy luncheons, and effectively issued marching orders to members. Lacking institutional independence, a sense of pride, and respect for our constitutional traditions, the GOP caucus, with no obvious debate, effectively let Cheney become part of the Senate Republican leadership. . . .

It’s unlikely to happen again.

I disagree with Benen’s last point.  Given the the possibility that the next Republican President could want his/her VP to return to the Cheney precedent, we can’t assume that we’ll never see a similar situation in the future.

That gets me back to an argument I made yesterday about the al Marri case:  we can’t assume that merely reversing policy will prevent future abuses of executive power.

So what does that mean in terms of the role of the Vice President?  I doubt that legislation clarifying the VP’s role in the Senate would hold up to a Constitutional review.  What we need is a national dialogue, led by Biden but including both Senate Democrats and Republicans.  It would be useful were the Vice President to be more than just a hood ornament, but it also may be useful to define a stronger role than merely waiting for the President to kick the bucket.

That may mean, as some have suggested, abolishing the vice presidency.  It could mean eliminating it and creating a full-time President of the Senate, second in line to the Presidency, whose role would be analogous to the Speaker of the House (the current President pro-tem is a figurehead, usually given to an elder in the party in power).  It could mean giving the VP a COO role, different from but similar to the current chief of staff job.

While they’re at it, they might want to rethink the current line of Presidential succession, which puts people like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd in line to become President before people half their age and twice their fitness for the job.

Related posts

• Why SCOTUS Should Hear the Al-Marri Case
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• The Transition
• The Human Rights Secretary of State?
• The Bailout Bill: A Threat to Constitutional Rule

Daphne Eviatar over at The Washington Independent has a good piece today on why Supreme Court probably will never hear the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri even though it has agreed to review it.  Al-Marri is a legal U.S. resident who the Bush Administration alleges was an al Qaeda sleeper agent.  He was arrested on September 11, 2001 as a material witness to the attacks, and since then, the government has held him without charge in the same South Carolina brig where they held Jose Padilla.

As Eviatar notes, the Bush Administration may choose to charge al-Marri as a criminal (and move him to a regular prison) rather than risk losing the case.  Even if they don’t, the Obama Administration is likely to reverse the Bush Administration’s position, either charging al-Marri in civilian courts or releasing him.  Either way, the chances are pretty slim that the case will actually get heard.

That would be unfortunate for two important reasons.

First, it’s largely forgotten now, but al Marri was one of those picked up during the FBI’s post-9/11 profiling orgy dragnet, during which thousands of people were detained only because someone thought they looked or acted suspicious.  Some turned out to be violating immigration law, but in many cases, the FBI held legal U.S. residents and citizens, instead instead naming them as “material witnesses” in the 9/11 investigation.

Since then, the Bush Administration’s disastrous pursuit of the war on terror — torture, indefinite detention, rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. — has meant that these events have fallen down the memory hole.  As the Obama Administration weighs what to do to document and assign responsiblility for the Bush Administration’s past actions, it should not overlook the events of the first few months after the attacks, a time when the U.S. Goverment mounted the largest mass round-up of U.S. citizens and legal residents since the detention of Japanese-Americans in World War Two.

By hearing the al-Marri case, the Court would provide an important opportunity to remind Americans that the Bush Administration’s crimes did not start with its interrogation policies, that long before we knew about torture memos, secret renditions, and other crimes, average American citizens and legal residents were locked up just because someone thought they looked suspicious or acted strangely.  By arguing that al-Marri should not be detained, the Obama Administration would demonstrate its willingness to repudiate even the more obscure components of the Bush Administration’s policies.

Second, were SCOTUS to hear and rule on the case, they are likely to overturn the government’s argument that a U.S. resident can be detained indefinitely.  That would close another legal loophole, preventing a future president from taking similar action in the future.

The reality is that we need to do more than merely change the Bush policies and prosecute those responsible.  We also need to change the torture-permissive culture that celebrated such acts.

There are two components to that effort:  legal precedent and popular culture.

In the case of the former, SCOTUS already has begun to create a framework that will make much more difficult any future attempt to pursue Bush-like policies in the future.  The al-Marri case represents an important part of that effort, and therefore should be heard and decided.  (Yes, I am assuming that the case will be decided in al-Marri’s favor, in large part because that would be consistent with every other Supreme Court ruling on Bush’s policies).

In terms of the latter, changing the culture will take more time.  We need to rethink a world in which “24″ can repeatedly show brutal torture without public complaint while half the country goes nuts over the brief appearance of Janet Jackson’s breast.  One way to make that happen is to air out the Bush Administration’s dirty laundry.  The al-Marri case offers just such an opportunity to the incoming Administration.

To draw an analogy, the civil rights movement succeeded when it did not merely because of laws but also because Americans decided that they no longer would tolerate Jim Crow.  That represented not merely a legal triumph but also a fundamental change in American culture.

We need something similar to happen to ensure that we eradicate the torture culture once and for all.  To that end, the Obama Administration should actively encourage the Court to rule in al-Marri’s favor.  Only when we change the way we look at torture will we eliminate the risk of a future President pursuing similar policies.

Related posts

• Human Rights Day
• What She Said
• Un-Bauer-able: The Return of “24″
• Torture, Bailouts, and the Theory of a Unitary Executive
• The Human Rights Secretary of State?

During her years as First Lady, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton was a fierce champion of human rights, speaking out about a variety of abuses, with a particular focus on women’s rights.  Here, for example is an excerpt from the speech she gave in 1998 at the White House commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone here today, however, knows how far we still have to go to ensure that the circle of human dignity embraces all citizens. Whether it’s young girls being sold into prostitution in Thailand, women who are victims of violence in their own homes here in this country or elsewhere, boys being used as human shields in Uganda, those recovering from the ravages of the Yugoslav conflict, or those arrested in China for political activity; we have to recognize the depth of injustice and human suffering that still exists around us. . . .

When we celebrate today the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we do have much to be thankful for. And many of us are living in societies and democracies that have gone such a far distance in the last 50 years to honor and protect human rights.

But let us not forget the hundreds of millions of people who are still at risk, the 100 million children who live in the streets, the 160 million children who are not even in primary school, those who are denied freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom to express an opinion, who have no choice that they can make to determine the course of their own lives.

This is not a marginal issue. Human rights goes to the very center of what we in the United States believe politics and democracy should be about.  And so today we celebrate the progress, but we also challenge ourselves to continue to seek out opportunities, wherever possible, to do all that we can to eliminate the continuing scourge of human rights abuses, wherever they may be found.

Should Hillary continue to frame human rights as going to “the very center” of America’s self-conception, she could be the perfect messenger for the new Administration, explaining to the world that we no longer will ignore the very principles at home that we so ardently championed abroad.

In addition (and perhaps as importantly), she could help bring about a sea change in the way the State Department itself looks at human rights.  Within “the building,” there is considerable bureaucratic ambivalence (and not infrequently hostility) toward human rights issues.  There are two reasons for this.

First, the dominant role played by the regional bureaus, in terms of policy means that country teams often regard human rights as a nuisance that gets in the way of things like trade, military cooperation, narcotics interdiction, and anti-terrorism.  During my time at State, I witnessed (and participated in) dozens of fights over whether to consider human rights when adopting a specific policy (say, trade with China, military assistance to Uzbekistan, or the war on drugs in Colombia).  Although we would win our share of the battles, we never were able to get past the general perception that human rights should only be talked about when dealing with countries that were not our friends or allies.

Second, the dominant role played by the regional bureaus also has an impact on career decisions.  If you’re a young foreign service officer working on the China desk, and your next step up the latter depends on a positive evaluation from your boss, the head of the China desk, and s/he thinks human rights should not get in the way of good relations with China, what position are you going to take?  There certainly is little incentive to buck your boss.

In addition, this has created a widespread perception that service in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor can be a career killer.  DRL has two knicknames:  “DRooL” and “the NGO inside the building.”  To say the least, neither of these is exactly an incentive to serve there.

This certainly is understandable.  If you want to move up the ladder, the last place you want to be is in a bureau that constantly bucks the system.  During my time in DRL, we struggled to get talented junior foreign service officers to serve (which is not to say we weren’t successful), and we saw senior foreign service officers who had served (or were serving) in DRL get passed over for the Senior Foreign Service.

Just to be clear, this does not mean that there aren’t talented and dedicated foreign service officers in DRL, or that there aren’t foreign service officers working in other bureaus (and overseas) who have pushed their offices to oppose human rights abuses.  Both exist, and both should be commended.  It also does not mean that there aren’t those who serve in DRL who go on to serve in significant positions — Mona Sutphen, Obama’s new deputy chief-of-staff, is one such example.  But overall, recruiting and keeping talented FSOs is far harder than it should be.

Clinton should think seriously about significantly expanding the size and budget of DRL.  It is sorely understaffed and in need of significant additional resources to do its job, which has only been made much harder by the policies of the Bush Administration.  Doing so also would send a strong signal to the rest of the building that DRL can and should play an important role in policy decisions.

Related posts

• Transition Watch: Mona Sutphen
• Loyalty v. Ideology (Reboot)
• Human Rights Day
• Transition Watch: Anger in the Ranks
• The Fake Controversy over Samantha Power

Hey kids, time for a new poll!

 Loading ...

If you’re seeing this via an RSS feed, you’ll need to go here.

Related posts

• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• The Manchurian President
• Human Rights Day

I’m surprised that I have seen absolutely nothing in the blogosphere about Jack Goldsmith’s piece in today’s WaPo, which argues that the Obama Administration should forgive and forget when it comes to the Bush Administration’s torture policies:

[Both prosecution and a bipartisan commission are] bad ideas. They would bring little benefit, and they would further weaken the Justice Department and the CIA in ways that would compromise our security. . . .

Second-guessing lawyers’ wartime decisions under threat of criminal and ethical sanctions may sound like a good idea to those who believe those lawyers went too far in the fearful days after Sept. 11, 2001. But the greater danger now is that lawyers will become excessively cautious in giving advice and will substitute predictions of political palatability for careful legal judgment. . . .

When the CIA was asked to engage in aggressive tactics early in the Bush administration, it knew from bitter experience that the political winds would change and that it might be subject to “retroactive discipline.” And so it sought approval from the president and his Cabinet, informed congressional leadership many times about what it was doing and got what it thought were airtight legal opinions from the Justice Department.

But these safeguards failed, and the CIA is once again mired in investigation and controversy. The lesson learned by many at the agency is that politically sensitive counterterrorism actions should be avoided, even if they are deemed legal and even if they have the express approval of political officials. We are going to be living with this skittishness for a long time, to the detriment of our security.

Yet another round of investigations during the Obama administration, even by a bipartisan commission, would exacerbate this problem. It would also bring little benefit. The people in government who made mistakes or who acted in ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate have been held publicly accountable by severe criticism, suffering enormous reputational and, in some instances, financial losses. Little will be achieved by further retribution.

Jack Goldsmith emerged as a hero among critics of the current Administration’s torture policies, largely as a result of his tenure as head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.  During his brief time there, Goldsmith stood up to David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney by withdrawing John Yoo’s infamous 2002 memo, which had redefined torture as physical suffering “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury” or mental suffering that had to “result in signifcant psychological harm. . .lasting for months and years.”  Goldsmith deserves significant credit for his courage, and for writing The Terror Presidency, which described in detail his efforts to rein in Addington, Gonzales, and, ultimately, Cheney and Bush.

But he’s dead wrong to suggest that an Obama Administration should forget the past.

The first thing that struck me about Goldsmith’s piece is that, other than the headline (which most likely was written by someone at WaPo, not Goldsmith himself), he bends over backwards not to use the word “torture”: Instead, he uses a number of increasingly ridiculous euphemisms:  “what many view as the Bush administration’s harsh, abusive and illegal interrogation program,” “interrogation and related programs,” “wartime decisions,” “aggressive tactics,” “politically sensitive counterterrorism actions,” “mistakes” and “ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate.”

Goldsmith apparently can’t bring himself to admit that the Bush Administration actually tortured people.  It’s not hard to recognize the reason for his reluctance:  prior to becoming Assistant Attorney General, Goldsmith held other posts, including in the Office of the General Counsel in the Pentagon.  Despite his decision to withdraw the Yoo memo, he could face legal jeopardy should any future investigation recommend prosecution.  So, as he himself acknowledges, it is in his interest to argue against any investigation.

But there are greater problems with Goldsmith’s arguments than merely self-interest.  The first is his suggestion that “Second-guessing lawyers’ wartime decisions under threat of criminal and ethical sanctions may sound like a good idea to those who believe those lawyers went too far in the fearful days after Sept. 11, 2001.”  The irony, of course, is that it was Goldsmith himself who was one of the first to second-guess Addington and Yoo.  His June 14, 2004 decision to withdraw Yoo’s memo was the beginning of the end of the Bush Administration’s unfettered license to do as it saw fit with those it detained.  For Goldsmith now to suggest that others should not do what he already did is at best inconsistent and at worst, smacks of a cover up of other memos or actions that have not yet seen the light of day.

The second is Goldsmith’s attempt to further muddy the waters by suggesting that current investigations by Congress, Justice, and the CIA should also look at Congress’s role and potential illegalities approved under the Clinton Administration.  Although I agree with Goldsmith that Clinton-era officials must be held accountable for approving the rendition of drug offenders, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the policies of the Clinton Administration should be put on the same footing as those of its successor.  To assign equal weight to Clinton- and Bush-era policies is not unlike suggesting that someone who smokes pot occasionally should be subjected to the same level of accountability as a drug kingpin.

The third and by far most significant problem with Goldsmith’s piece is his suggestion that any investigation and/or prosecution would lead “many government lawyers to be more risk averse and politically sensitive than ever. . . .The lesson learned by many at the [CIA] is that politically sensitive counterterrorism actions should be avoided, even if they are deemed legal and even if they have the express approval of political officials. We are going to be living with this skittishness for a long time, to the detriment of our security.”

To begin with, Goldsmith’s argument that government lawyers might be more “risk averse” and “politically sensitive” in the future ignores the fact that Bush-era lawyers (with the exception of Alberto Mora and Goldsmith himself) did what they did because they didn’t want the wrath of Cheney, Addington, and Gonzales brought down on their heads.  They understood that challenging the Administration’s stated determination to shred existing laws prohibiting torture and war crimes would quickly end their careers as government lawyers.

Such fears weren’t unfounded.  In some cases, such as that of Jesselyn Radack, who challenged the some of Administration’s actions during the detention of “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, the Administration not only pushed people out of government, but tried to blackball them with potential future employers.  In Radack’s case, they even put her on the no-fly list.

To put it another way, part of the problem with what happened over the past eight years is that so many lawyers were exactly what Goldsmith suggests they shouldn’t be: utterly risk averse and politically sensitive.  They didn’t speak out because they feared the consequences.  It’s not like Goldsmith didn’t understand this — he submitted his letter of resignation two days after he decided to withdraw Yoo’s memo and, in all likelihood, before he could be fired.

Goldsmith’s concern about limiting the ability of the CIA to conduct “politically sensitive counterterrorism operations” is equally supect.  Since Nuremberg, “legality” has never been a sufficent defense for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.  The reality is that senior CIA officials were just as unwilling to stand up to the Administration’s desire to torture those in its custody.  In fact, some in the Agency, including Cofer Black, were eager to “take the gloves off” long before Yoo started drafting memoranda.

And as the recent controversy over the possible appointment of John Brennan to serve as CIA Director demonstrates, even those not directly involved in policy decisions are now viewed as accountable merely for being in the room when some of these decisions were discussed.

In the end, Goldsmith’s arguments simply don’t stand up to closer scrutiny.  They represent little more than a weak apologia for policies that he may slowed but nonetheless did not stop.  In fact, had Goldsmith stayed (and, in fairness, had he not been fired), he would have had to draft a replacement for the memo he withdrew.  Chances are that he would have drafted something not unlike that put forward by Dan Levin, his successor, which stated that the CIA could not be held criminally responsible for actions authorized by the Yoo memo.

It really is a shame that Goldsmith has chosen to tarnish his reputation by trying to protect the very people whom he once so courageously opposed.

Note:  As is usually the case when it comes to questions of the Bush Administration’s torture policies, Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side was indespensible in helping me reconstruct time lines and roles.

Related posts

• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• Ambassador for All War Crimes except Our Own
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• Was McCain Tortured? Ask Dick Cheney

With only a couple of months left before the Bush Administration gets indicted leaves office, I was wondering whether Dubya would launch any last-minute foreign policy initiatives.  Doing so would not be unprecedented — eight years ago, Clinton spent a lot of his time trying to secure Middle East peace.

According to Jim Hoagland in this morning’s WaPo, Bush isn’t interested in similar efforts, shooting down a proposal by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reach out to Cuba and Iran.

Unlike Hoagland, I think that is a mistake, particularly in the case of Cuba.

Someone (sorry — I can’t find the reference) once said that the best time to open the door to Cuba would be during the second term of a Republican president. The current transition to a new President makes even more sense.  Given the fact that every President since Kennedy has been captive to the electoral influence of Florida’s Cuban exile community, the best way to break the cycle is to take action when there’s little or no impact on politics. And it’s not like the move would hurt Republican prospects — Cuban-American Members of Congress (and the 2012 Republican nominee) could condemn Bush’s decision.

I have no illusions about the Castros — in the early 1990s, I spent a year documenting the Castro regime’s use of psychiatric techniques (such as electro-convulsive therapy) to torture dissidents.  But I share President-elect Obama’s view that the best way to secure change in rogue regimes is through engagement.  The decades-old U.S. policy of isolating Cuba has failed to bring down the Castro regime and has done little to encourage domestic Cuban opposition.  In fact, the current embargo only gives the Castros greater legitimacy in the eyes of average Cubans.

It’s been nearly twenty years since the Berlin Wall fell.  Most Americans — and even most policymakers — no longer think that isolating Cuba makes any sense.  It’s no longer a “Soviet aircraft carrier off the shores of Florida,” and it isn’t even the greatest challenge to American influence in Latin America (that dubious honor now belongs to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela).

Rice’s mistake may have been attempting to move directly to the idea of formally recognizing the Castro regime.  According to Hoagland, Rice sent a team of senior diplomats to explore the that possibility a year ago.  I agree with Hoagland that doing so would have represented moving too quickly and would have severely limited President-elect Obama’s options.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t steps that Bush could take to improve U.S.-Cuban relations.  The first, and least politically costly, would be to end the current rule preventing Cuban-Americans from sending remittances to their Cuban relatives.  Even the Cuban American National Foundation, the most vocal (and politically powerful) advocate of sustaining the embargo, has said it would support the change.

The second would be to seek an agreement with the Castros to permit more extensive cultural exchanges (including journalists).  One of the most effective components of American public diplomacy during the Cold War was a series of exchanges that brought Soviet artists to the United States and sent American artists to tour the Soviet Union.  The program helped give Soviet citizens an entirely different view of life in the United States than what they were seeing in Soviet propaganda.  (The Soviets also recognized the value of such exchanges, and used them for the same purpose.)

The third would be to end the embargo and permit U.S.-Cuban trade.  Allowing the flow of American goods into the country would do much to increase Cuban citizens’ opinion of the United States and end one of the Castro brothers’ most effective arguments against improved relations.

These measures would go a long way toward ending the freeze in Cuban-American relations without undermining the underlying policy — that the Cuban people deserve the opportunity to choose their own government.  It also would do harm to Chavez and others who like to argue that the United States is only interested in advancing its neocolonialist policies.

So why would Bush oppose such efforts, even when they involve no apparent cost?  The answer has nothing to do with Hoagland’s view that any reassessment of Cuban policy should be left to the next Administration and everything to do with politics:  Jeb Bush may still think he can run for President in four years.  Given Dubya’s current unpopularity, that certainly looks like the longest of long shots. But President Bush is unlikely to do anything now that would undermine his brother’s popularity in a key Republican constituency.

Related posts

• Cuba and the United States: Politics over Principle
• Wonk’d: Why the UN Human Rights Council Blows
• The Bailout Bill: A Threat to Constitutional Rule
• Some Polite Questions for the Bush Administration
• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes

There’s word today from numerous sources that Colin Powell will go on Meet the Press this Sunday and endorse Barack Obama. The Obama campaign certainly isn’t doing anything to discourage the speculation:

Today Obama spokesperson Linda Douglas said she has no news on the Powell front, but the campaign would obviously love an endorsement.  ”We would welcome the support of somebody with such a distinguished and honorable career as General Powell,” she told me this morning, as Obama’s plane flew to Virginia for a rally.  Obama has previously cited Powell as a potential member of his administration, and the two have been in touch before. “I know they talk from time to time about foreign policy matters,” Douglas said, though she did not know the last time they spoke.  Powell is widely viewed as a thoughtful public servant who carries credibility (and experience) in both parties.

Quite a few folks in the progosphere think Powell endorsing Obama would be a great thing.  I’m not so sure.

Like many others, I had a great deal of respect for Powell before he joined the Bush Administration.  His story was a compelling one and his service was largely distinguished.  In 1996, Powell chose, for a variety of reasons, not to run for President.  Had he done so, he very well might have defeated Clinton.  Instead, he remained on the sidelines until Dubya asked him to serve as Secretary of State.

These days, Powell is often viewed as a tragic figure, largely because of his 2003 presentation at the UN Security Council during the Administration’s push for war with Iraq.  According to Powell, he was duped by the CIA, who convinced Powell that the intelligence behind his presentation was unimpeachable.  Powell then went out and made the case for war.

Thirty months later, Powell told Tim Russert that the CIA had misled him, using intelligence based on discredited sources.   Since then, conventional wisdom has given Powell the benefit of the doubt.  Many commentators regard his statement that he had been misled as the same thing as an apology:

Private warnings cannot cancel out Powell’s hawkish presentation to the U.N., but unlike so many war cheerleaders in politics and the media, he owned up to his mistakes. On national television, Powell called the U.N. address a “blot” on his record.

Fair enough — everyone makes mistakes, and to his credit, Powell has acknowledged (or at least gave the appearance of acknowledging) that he was wrong.  Second chances are the American way, and certainly a Powell endorsement of Obama would represent an open repudiation not only of his friend John McCain, but also of the Administration for whom he worked.

There’s just one small problem.  Powell’s testimony before the UNSC was only the second biggest “blot” on his record.

The biggest was, and is, his tacit support for torture.  If, as the Nuremberg tribunals established, knowledge is complicity, then Colin Powell is guilty of war crimes.  And unlike Iraq, he’s never apologized for his role in helping to shred the Constitution, ignore the Convention against Torture, and trash the Geneva Conventions.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Here’s what Jane Mayer has to say in The Dark Side:

Bush also knew about, and approved of, White House meetings in which his top cabinet members were briefed by the CIA on its plan to use specific “enhanced” interrogation techniques on various high-value detainees.  The meetings were chaired by Rice. . . . The participants were members of the Principals Committee, the five Bush cabinet members  who handled national security matters:  Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet, and Attorney General Ashcroft.

Knowing how the Agency had been blamed for ostensible “rogue” actions in the past, Tenet was eager to spread the political risk of undertaking “enhanced interrogations.” However, some members of the group became irritated with Tenet’s insistence upon airing the grim details.  “The CIA already had legal clearance to do these things,” a knowledgable source said, “and so it was pointless for them to keep sharing the details.  No one was going to question their decisions. . . . It’s not as if any of the principals were debating the policy — that was already set.  They wanted to go to the limit that the law required. . . .”

There is no indication. . .that any Bush cabinet members objected to the policy. [emphasis added]

As Mayer acknowledges, Powell did object quite strongly to Bush’s decision to suspend the Geneva Conventions.  But he did not make those concerns public or threaten to resign.  He merely accepted the outcome and soldiered on.  It is only at the time of Abu Ghraib (and the first media reports of John Yoo’s infamous August 2002 “torture memo”), Mayer notes that Powell (along with Rice) began to express qualms:

After reading the torture memo  itself for the first time in the newspapers, Rice and Powell confronted Gonzales together and furiously insisted that there be “no more secret opinions on international and national security law.”  Their righteous anger seemed somewhat undercut by reports that Tenet had provided graphic details of specific coercive interrogations during the Principals Committee meetings while both were present.  And while they directed their frustration at Gonzales, neither had the temerity to confront Cheney, who clearly was the true source of these policies. [emphasis added]

Colin Powell passively assented to torture.  Although he occasionally raised concerns, there is no evidence that he threatened to resign — as Ashcroft and others did over the issue of domestic wiretapping.  He sat in meetings and listened as George Tenet offered graphic descriptions of torture committed by U.S. government officials — and never once objected, other than to complain that Tenet’s statements were unnecessary, given the fact that the President already had authorized torture.

As was the case with his presentation at the United Nations, he accepted what he heard and did as he was told.  Only later, after the Yoo memo and the Abu Ghraib scandal became public, did he begin to object — and then only to ask if there were any other memos he should know about.  At no time did he confront Cheney or Bush, threaten to go public, or quit in protest.

Later on, after he was once again a private citizen, Powell did raise concerns about the Administration’s policies, writing in 2006 to John McCain to express his opposition to proposed rules on Military Commissions:

In his letter to McCain, Powell said the effort to “redefine” the article was “inconsistent” with his previous opposition to the use of torture. “The world,” he wrote, “is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” . . .

Powell declined yesterday to address Bush’s comments. “To say that we want to modify, clarify or redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions], which has not been modified for the 57 years of its history, I think adds to the doubt” about U.S. morality, he said. “Plus I believe that the legitimate concerns that the administration has can be dealt with in other ways.”

The problem, of course, is that there is no public record during Powell’s tenure as Secretary of State of his “previous opposition to the use of torture.”  In his letter to McCain, Powell makes it clear that his objection is not with the underlying policy, but rather the tactics around the military commission.  That is not exactly taking a stand in the face of evil or speaking truth to power.

Silence in the face of evil is assent.  In the eyes of the law, it’s called conspiracy.   At best, Powell’s  actions — both in regard to Iraq and to torture — show a lack of critical thinking.  At worst, they demonstrate profound moral cowardice.

So pardon me if I’m not thrilled at the notion of Powell endorsing Barack Obama.

Related posts

• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• Ambassador for All War Crimes except Our Own
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• State Department Watch: Fed up with Bush?
• Obama, Messaging, and Dean Wormer

Please watch, share, and blog about this amazing, wonderful short animated film.

I found this extraordinarily moving.  I’ve spent much of my career trying to convince governments to respect the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other documents.  Our own government could do a lot worse than adhering to the principles outlined therein.

When I was in the Clinton Administration, I conceived and got the President to sign an executive order creating the Eleanor Roosevelt Award, which honored Americans who had made outstanding contributions to the cause of human rights.  (For those who don’t know, Eleanor Roosevelt played a central role in the drafting of the UDHR.)  The award was established in December 1998, as part of the Administration’s commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration.   In the three years I helped put the event together, honorees included John Lewis, Fred Cuny, Bette Bao Lord, and Dorothy Thomas, among others.

It probably would not surprise you that the Bush Administration stopped giving it out.  It would be fitting for the next Administration to restart it.  The first awards should go to those who, over the past eight years, have fought so valiantly to try to keep this administration from shredding our rights and defacing the UDHR.

More importantly, we must demand that our government be the leader on human rights — the government as envisioned by Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, and many others — and not among the world’s worst abusers.

We have that right.

You can find out more about the campaign here and the video here.

Hat tip:  Andrew Sullivan

Related posts

• The Human Rights Secretary of State?
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• Human Rights Day
• Dipnote Follies: Twitter TMI, Nukes, and Human Rights
• Wonk’d: How to Cover the Olympics

Over at TPM Cafe, Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side, asks the same question that I’ve been asking:

While both McCain and Obama have spoken out against torture, neither has spelled out what he plans to do about holding Bush Administration officials accountable who may have committed or authorized crimes. Understandably, this is a toxic subject, reeking of political payback. But I have personally interviewed CIA officers who have said they refused to partake in the “enhanced interrogation” program because they feared that eventually it would lead to criminal charges. They had seen this happen before, and wanted nothing to do with it, even if it meant in some instances, leaving the CIA. The threat of prosecution clearly acted as a deterrent.

My question is what happens if there is no accountability for America’s first program of state-authorized torture? Does it send a green light to torture again when the next attack takes place? Is it an invitation to other forms of lawlessness by the U.S. Government? But, if top officials of the Bush Administration who were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the country’s security, are now prosecuted, is that just? Will the public support it? Particularly if Obama is elected, wont this become exhibit A that the Democrats are soft on terrorism, and members of the “Blame-America-First” Club?

. . . [O]n a morning when accountability seems to have evaporated in the financial world - I’d like to know what we do about accountability at the top of our government for authorizing the abuse- and in some cases the killing of U.S.-held prisoners, all of which were criminal until the day before 9/11.

My answer is that we need to prosecute everyone responsible, from Bush down to the CIA agents, military interrogators, and even translators and medical personnel who participated.  It is not political payback, but justice — let us not forget the fundamental principle that came out of Nuremberg:  “I was just following orders” is no excuse for participation in heinous acts.

I suspect that the American people are going to want the Bushies held accountable for everything they’ve done, and that Republicans, who have spent so much time and effort lately running away from their President, will not be in a position to defend him or any of those responsible.

But let’s start from the top, not at the bottom as was done in Abu Ghraib.  We need to take down the twelve individuals who designed and implemented America’s first-ever Presidentially sanctioned torture regime:  Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Addington, Yoo, Flanigan, Haynes, Chertoff, Tenet, and Rice.  All of them knew what was happening.  All of them signed off on these policies.  All of them should go to jail.

As Mayer notes, accountability has evaporated under this disastrous regime.  We must do everything we can to ensure that it returns, not merely in financial matters, but across the board.

Image via Wikipedia, in the public domain.

Related posts

• Ambassador for All War Crimes except Our Own
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• Goldsmith’s Tortured Apologia
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• The Manchurian President

Bet you don’t remember Chip Diller. Maybe this will help:

That’s Kevin Bacon as Chip Diller in Animal House (sorry for only a screenshot — I couldn’t find a clip anywhere).  Bacon’s most famous line, delivered while screaming hysterically, was

REMAIN CALM!  ALL IS WELL!

These days, there are thousands of Chip Dillers walking around.  They’re the people who continue to insist that everything is okay even when they know it’s not the case.  To put it another way, they aggressively deny reality.  Or you could just call them Bush Administration officials.

Take, for example our new fearless leader lender, Henry Paulson.

REMAIN CALM!!  ALL IS WELL!!

Kudos to Chris Wallace (of all people) for pushing Paulson on this. But go back and listen again.  Paulson admits that they knew six months ago, at the time of the Bear Stears bailout, that this was coming.   But he didn’t think that they could get Congress to agree to a bigger bailout, so they didn’t even try.

There is no way we could have gone to Congress and got the authority to inject capital into the banking system by buying illiquid assets unless there was a clear and urgent and obvious need.  So although many of us looking at it said it could come to something like this, we [were] hoping to avoid it.  The key here was the speed of the housing price correction.

So let me get this straight.

Paulson, among others, knew six months ago this was coming.  And he knew what it would take to fix it.

And he (they) did nothing — nothing! — to prevent it.  They bailed out Bear Stearns, sat back, and crossed their fingers and maybe their toes.  They waited, hoping — hoping! — that things wouldn’t go to hell.

Knowing what he knew, Paulson also went on national television and lied:

WALLACE:  Are more Wall Street firms in danger, at risk of going under?

PAULSON:  Chris, I’ve got great confidence in our financial markets, our financial institutions, our markets are resilient, they’re flexible.  Our institutions, our banks, our investment banks are strong.

That’s not a fudge, a misstatement, or a misunderstanding.  It’s a flat out John-McCain-in-full-campaign-mode lie.

Just remember. . .

REMAIN CALM!  ALL IS WELL!

And now we’re supposed to reward this guy by giving him dictatorial control over the economy?

I have a better idea.  Let’s impeach him instead.

Chip Diller, white courtesy phone please.

Hat tip:  Think Progress

Related posts

• Today’s Political Haikus
• The Margin Call
• Torture, Bailouts, and the Theory of a Unitary Executive
• Thought of the Morning
• The Bailout Bill: A Threat to Constitutional Rule

I just finished Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side.  I’ve blogged a bit on it already, and if I have the time, will try to offer some additional observations later this week.  In the meantime, Alan Jacobs over at The American Scene wonders why conservative media outlets have chosen to ignore the book:

[I]f you. . .see the book only as an anthology of information in the public record — newspaper articles, interviews with named figures, books by former Bush administration officials, government documents, and so on — it’s still a convincing demonstration of how certain high-ranking leaders ignored international law and overturned decades (even centuries) of American practices towards enemy combatants.

Yet I have seen almost no response to this book in the conservative press. What’s up with that? The Dark Side has been reviewed in most major newspapers and magazines, but not from any of the conservative organs I’ve seen. Have I missed something? And if not, what are we to make of this silence?

Do conservatives think Mayer’s book is so bad that it’s unworthy of response? (If so, they’re wrong.) Are they just trying to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable truths, and would prefer not to think about what the Bush administration has done in prosecuting its war on terror? Or — perhaps the most interesting possibility — do they agree that Mayer has accurately described the administration’s actions but simply judge those actions very differently, as necessary and even commendable responses to the Islamist threat?

Keep in mind that Jacobs himself is a conservative, so he is not looking for an excuse attack his movement colleagues. If his last thesis is the correct one, then conventional conservativism no longer regards civil liberties and the rule of law as important as national security.

I do find it interesting that many of the conservative voices now arguing that the Paulson-Bernanke bailout plan as an unconscionable expansion of government power didn’t seem to have a problem with government overreach when it involved torture, rendition, and other abuses.  Their acquiesence then helped lay the groundwork for a similar expansion today.

To put it another way, conservatives had no problem with the Administration’s application of the theory of a