An Astute Reader, who may not wish to be identified, or asked why he was reading a New Scientistarticle about female ejaculation, sent in this nominee for Name of the Day: Florian Wimpissinger, an Austrian urologist at Rudolfstiftung Hospital in Vienna.
The article mentions another expert on female ejaculation, after whom the phenomenon should definitely be named: sexologist Beverly Whipple.
When Souter announced his retirement, I said I wanted a justice with criminal trial experience (I should have specified on the defense side). Because I’m tired of decisions like today’s in Montejo v. Louisiana, in which 5 justices pretended that eroding a suspect’s right not to be questioned without their attorney present, after they have invoked their right to that attorney, won’t lead to many people being falsely convicted on the basis of coerced confessions (WaPo: “The government...” that’s the Obama administration, folks “...said that suspects who don’t wish to talk to police don’t have to and that officers must respect that decision.” Of course they must. Indeed, Scalia referred to not having many people being falsely convicted on the basis of coerced confessions as only a “marginal benefit” of the previous (Jackson) rule.
When Thurgood Marshall retired, one of his old clerks recounted to NPR a story Marshall had told his clerks from his old NAACP days, when he had arrived in some Southern town only to be told that his client had been lynched the night before. Somehow I don’t think he’d have been too impressed by the “marginal benefits” claim.
Evidently the right will be attacking Sotomayor on the Ricci case, in which the Second Circuit ruled that Christina Ricci should really be more selective in her choice of roles.
Sonia Sotomayor on why she became a lawyer: “I chose to be a lawyer, and ultimately a judge, because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law.”
Barack Obama on why Sotomayor became a lawyer: “when she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of eight, she was informed that people with diabetes can’t grow up to be police officers or private investigators like Nancy Drew.”
Dick Cheney is trying to sell his memoirs. But what should it be called? “From Wyoming to an Undisclosed Location.” “The Last Throes.” “Wouldn’t You Like to Know What I Kept in My Man-Sized Safe?” “No, I Won’t Shut Up Already.” And of course, “Go Fuck Yourselves.”
George Bush also gave a speech yesterday, at a high school in New Mexico. While Obama and Cheney were speaking about national security, Bush talked about dog shit. Now that he’s just an ordinary guy, he has to walk his ordinary dog Barney around the ordinary streets of his ordinary Dallas neighborhood and pick up Barney’s ordinary poop. “And there I was, former President of the United States of America, with a plastic bag on my hand. Life is returning back to normal.”
Of course, George Bush being George Bush, he had the bag on the wrong hand.
Then it was Cheney’s turn to speak at the American Enterprise Institute, where he’d been chomping at the bit (quite possibly literally) for Obama to finish (they were watching Obama’s speech, which started late). So Cheney was just a little snotty: “It’s pretty clear the president served in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives, because, of course, in the House, we have the five-minute rule.” Take that, President Big Mouth!
(I’m limiting my commentary – I have a headache. Can’t imagine why.)
The speech was all 9/11, victory dance, and vendetta.
After a brief mention of secret surveillance, which focused on the NYT reporting of it (“It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country or the safety of our people.”), the speech was almost entirely about interrogation, 45 minutes on the virtues of torture, which was “legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do.”
He’s also not too thrilled with Obama for releasing those Justice Dept memos: “The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question.” No they weren’t. “Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interests of the United States.”
“Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called truth commission.” Which is so-called, the commission or the whole idea of truth?
“All the zeal that has been directed at the interrogations is utterly misplaced, and staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.”
“You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists.”
“[I]t takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.”
“we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.”
“I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about values.”
“And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.” And if there’s one thing Dick Cheney hates, it’s recklessness cloaked in righteousness that makes the American people less safe.
“The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the president is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half-exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States; you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.”
He went on at some length about how the Obamaites are backing away from Bushian rhetoric, and that’s making us weak too: “Apparently using the term war where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated.”... “there are no more ‘enemy combatants’”... “back in the days of that scary war on terror”... “In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, abducted.”
“Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept terrorists here in the homeland, and it has even been suggested U.S. taxpayer dollars would be used to support them.” Suggested by morons, and I’m pretty sure Holder never said any such thing.
EVERY TIME A EUROPEAN APPLAUDS, AN ANGEL DIES: “The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo”.
THERE’S NO BUSINESS LIKE JIHAD BUSINESS: “An estimated 14 percent of those released previously are believed to be back in the business of jihad.”
He lambasted the idea, which Obama had alluded to in his speech, that American torture is a recruitment tool for terrorists: “it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the left, We brought it on ourselves.” So why do terrorists really hate us? You’ll never guess. They hate us for our freedom.
“Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values, but no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things.”
“And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.” I’m pretty sure no nation’s value include welcoming being targeted by a terror network.
Debating Cheney’s interrogation policies is, of course, a grave threat to national security: “And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead, the terrorists see just what they were hoping for: our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.”
He claimed that “President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate” although “What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against and which ones not to worry about.”
Today Obama and Cheney have dueling speeches on national security (I’ll examine Cheney’s in a post later today). (Some of the pictures of Obama in this post are actually of the wax figure of Obama which arrived at the Wax Museum in San Francisco today. See if you can spot which ones.)
Obama repeatedly stressed the need to stick with our fundamental values*
*unless it is absolutely convenient not to. So there was a lot of stirring rhetoric interspersed with less stirring caveats.
He said that the Bush admin (which he never named) made after 9/11 “a series of hasty decisions” and “all too often... made decisions based on fear rather than foresight.” Oh, I’m pretty sure those are the same decisions they’d have made with the benefit of more time and less soiled underpants.
“Now, I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. ... That’s why we must leave these methods where they belong, in the past.” Er, they didn’t really belong there either. It’s not like waterboarding was ever a good idea.
“Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo, likely, created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.” So it’s like a Ponzi scheme....?
He said some prisoners will be tried by US courts for violating US laws, some will be tried by military tribunals for violating the laws of war, some will be released per previous court rulings, some transferred to other countries and... “Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.” Oh good, the legal category, so well known to the Constitution, of people who “cannot be tried and cannot be released.” “Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at Al Qaida training camps or commanded Taliban troops in battle or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans.”
“Expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden.”
He explained that he released the Bush Justice Dept memos because “the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known. The Bush administration had acknowledged its existence. And I had already banned those methods.” Anyone else have the distinct impression that he would have covered them up if “the existence of that approach to interrogation” had not been “already widely known”?
“There was and is no debate as to what is reflected in those photos is wrong.” Obama doesn’t watch a lot of Fox News.
“I ran for president promising transparency. And I meant what I said. And that’s why, whenever possible, my administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” You know, whenever possible. Of course it’s always possible; he means whenever it’s not inconvenient. When it is inconvenient, he’ll let the American people make uninformed judgments and hold the government unaccountable. Like his retention of the power to detain people indefinitely, this comes down to the same “trust us, we’re the good guys” approach as the Cheneyites.
Speaking of Cheney, he gave a little shout-out to his rebuttal speaker: “Some Americans are angry. Others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, in some cases, debates that they have lost.”
He opposes a truth commission. “I have opposed the creation of such a commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability.” Of course, the purpose of the truth commission would be to investigate things that our existing democratic institutions failed to prevent happening, so, you know, good luck with that.
“Already, we’ve seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides to laying blame.” Er, so?
IN OLDEN DAYS A GLIMPSE OF STOCKING: “on the one side of the spectrum, there those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism and would almost never put national security over transparency. And on the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words -- anything goes.”
“Now, both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist. They don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems.” You know what the Constitution and Bill of Rights – which you’re literally standing right in front of – are, Barack? A rigid ideology.
Sen. Inhofe on how great it is to be a prisoner in Guantanamo: “anyone, any detainee over 55 has an opportunity to have a colonoscopy.” Whether he wants it or not. Clearly, the Dems voted to keep Gitmo open as a sneaky move to bring in socialized medicine.
The ad which asks the burning question, If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?
In Britain, the scandal over MPs’ expenses is taking scalps. Speaker Michael Martin, who I always thought rather bad at presiding over Parliament, is out, as is Douglas Hogg (Indy headline: “Hogg Stands Down to Spend More Time Cleaning His Moat”). Many more MPs will stand down at the next election or be de-selected by their local parties.
Chinese authorities have stopped some... entrepreneur’s plans to open a sex theme park called Love Land, and sent in workers to tear it down. CAPTION CONTEST:
Today, Obama met with Binyamin Netanyahu, and then had a press conference. Obama said Bibi “has both youth and wisdom,” which in terms of misperception is right up there with Bush looking into Putin’s soul.
While they may have disagreed about a two-state solution, there was no disagreement about Israel’s proper identity as an ethno-sectarian state. Obama: “It is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as an independent Jewish state is maintained.” Netanyahu: “I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state”. For what other state does the US recognize a principle of racial/ethnic/religious dominance as legitimate?
Bibi said “we don’t want to govern the Palestinians.” Not that he wants anybody else to do it either; anarchic chaos is just fine with him. “We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.” You know, just a handful of powers.
Obama gently twitted Netanyahu on settlements (the Bib-stir authorized a new West Bank settlement just before leaving for Washington, an entirely new one as opposed to “expansion” of an existing settlement), saying that settlements are “a difficult issue. I recognize that, but it’s an important one and it has to be addressed.” Which, as Eli points out, is not a demand that settlement-building stop immediately. What else needs to be “addressed”? “I think the humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed.” I believe the linguists call that the future nebulous tense.
Schwarzenegger, trying to influence next Tuesday’s vote, suggests the budget cuts that will ensue if when his initiatives are voted down. For example, do we really need the third and seventh grades?
So Nancy Pelosi said that the CIA failed to tell her about waterboarding in secret briefings, the CIA says it did. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the secret briefings are for: so that both sides can claim whatever it’s convenient to claim about what took place in them. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Nancy Pelosi says the CIA lied to her, explicitly denying that there had been any waterboarding. John Boehner thinks he can prove that she is lying by this simple but deadly logic: “When you look at the number of briefings that the Speaker was in and other Democrat members of the House and Senate, it’s pretty clear that they were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were.” When you have eliminated the impossible – the CIA failing to tell the truth at multiple briefings – whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
So let me get this straight. Obama has decided to fight the court-ordered release of torture pictures which, he claims, are “not particularly sensational” and “would not add any additional benefit to our understanding,” but would, if published, “further inflame anti-American opinion and... put our troops in greater danger.” So the pictures are unsensational but inflammatory. Or maybe he means unsensational to jaded Americans but inflammatory for excitable foreigners.
I’d guess that the real reason here, besides a lot of whining from the military, is that some of the pictures are of abuse that occurred in Obama’s favorite war, Afghanistan, where information about detainee abuse at Bagram – indeed, any information about detainees in Bagram – has been kept relatively quiet – no Lynddie Englands with digital cameras.
He focused on the fact that these abuses of prisoners – which at one point in his statement today he referred to as “alleged abuse” – occurred in the past. But not everyone shares his belief that the United States was born anew on January 20th. He inherited this country’s past along with its government, and while he attempts to sound like an objective outsider making judgments about what is or is not sensational, what will or will not aid the public understanding, he fails to realize that what he sounds like, because it’s what he is, is the head of a government covering up for employees of the government. He is not a disinterested bystander. Bush and Rumsfeld’s cover-up is now Obama’s cover-up.
What, according to Obama, are the dangers of releasing the photos? “I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse.” I puzzled over that for a while with no success, but I think Digby has successfully decoded it: “Apparently, the logic is that the military will refuse to investigate criminal behavior if there is any chance that pictures of such criminal behavior could be made public. So we simply won’t make pictures of it public anymore.” To put it another way, the military has other goals that it values more than stopping the abuse of detainees, and Obama is validating those priorities.
In the end, it’s all about protecting our troops: “I am concerned about how the release of these photos would be -- would impact on the safety of our troops.” So if you oppose this cover-up, you hate our troops.
