Eric Umansky

The WH's NSA Bluff

Anonymous Liberal details just how swiss-cheesy the administration's arguments in defense of the NSA spying are.  So, what AL wonders, "is the Bush administration's long term strategy here?":

Why bluff so aggressively? [G]iven the weakness of its legal position, you would expect the administration to be making some attempt to mitigate the long term fallout of this scandal, perhaps by attempting to moot the issue by seeking congressional authorization for the program. Sure, the administration would take some lumps in the short term by implicitly admitting that it overstepped its authority, but better that than a stinging judicial rebuke down the road.

Answer: They know they're going to lose in court; they are just trying to keep the public on the side on the meantime to avoid the Armageddon scenario: having the Dems gain control of Congress, after which the subpoenas would start flying.

Good Idea, Eh

Looks like some Canadian miners faced a similar situation to what the dozen trapped miners in West Virginia had. A fire, toxic smoke, etc. But this time all the miners were rescued and none had serious injuries:

When toxic smoke began to fill the tunnels, the miners retreated to so-called refuge stations -- spacious chambers that can be sealed off and are equipped with supplies of oxygen, food and water.

[A company official] said his men weren't exposed to any smoke, and the biggest hardship was waiting until they were rescued.

"A lot of them said they had a good sleep down there in the refuge station," he said. "They were pretty calm."

"Refuge stations" sure sound like a good idea, which is probably why Canada requires them. Et tu Mr. President?

And Away I Go

Back... Monday.

Hamas...

I feel queasier than ever now that Hamas has actually won--in a something of a landslide! But I still suspect the win will moderate the group. (Yes, weak wording.) And I still believe, the U.S. should not reflexively shun Hamas. Rather make dealing with them a function not of who they are but what they do. Abu Aarvark wraps it up well:

Honor the will of the people, demonstrate a commitment to democratic process, and see what happens.  Give Hamas the chance to prove its intentions.  Don't get too upset about the inevitable bursts of objectionable rhetoric by excited victors - test deeds, not early words.  Above alll, don't give the Islamist hardliners the winning argument they crave about American hypocrisy.  Refusing to deal with Hamas right now could effectively kill American attempts to promote democracy in the Middle East for a generation.

Interesting thing is, Bush might be considering that advice:

In a hastily called news conference intended in part to foreshadow the themes of next week's State of the Union address, Bush sought to put the results of yesterday's elections in a positive light -- while refusing to say categorically whether the United States would cut off aid or stop dealing with a new Palestinian government led by Hamas.

Or he may be spinning in support of his pro-democracy rhetoric. We'll see...

Breaking! Initiative Brings U.S.-Iran Together

Thankfully, something has finally the bridged gap between Iran and the U.S.  From a Human Rights Watch press release:

(Washington, D.C., January 25, 2006) - In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

Ah, homophobia bringing the world together. I'm all vaklempt.

"Hoses and sledge hammer handles"

In a post below, I talked about how while one  soldier go off easy for overseeing the torturing-to-death of an Iraqi general, the soldier's commanders--all the way to the top--have gotten off even easier. Commanders, including those sitting back in Washington, gave orders steeped in ambiguity and winks,  and suffering from a lack of accountability. 

So what else happened at the jail where the Iraqi general was killed? The prison was known as Blacksmith Hotel and here's the Salt Lake Tribune, with details:

Central Intelligence Agency officials were beating inmates with hoses and sledge hammer handles, soldiers have testified. Senior military commanders were nowhere to be found....

Several of the soldiers who served with [Welshofer, the soldier convicted of killing the general] noted that the conditions at Blacksmith and tactics of others there made Welshofer's interrogation methods seem humane by comparison.

Number of CIA personel who've faced charges regarding any detainee abuse: one--and he was in Afghanistan, not the "Blacksmith Hotel."

(Salt Lake Trib story via Sully.)

Sloppy Seconds Watch

This, cribbed from Secrecy News, strikes me as an important new wrinkle in the warrantless spying case:

The Bush Administration rejected a Congressional initiative in 2002 that would have lowered the legal threshold for conducting surveillance of non-US persons under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from "probable cause" that the target is a terrorist or agent of a foreign power to "reasonable suspicion."

Administration officials said at the time that the legislative proposal was unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional. Yet in a speech this week on the NSA domestic surveillance program, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Gen. Michael V. Hayden indicated that the executive branch had unilaterally adopted a similar "reasonable suspicion" standard....

The unexplained contradiction between the Administration's public rejection of the "reasonable suspicion" standard for FISA, and its secret adoption of that same standard was noted yesterday by attorney and blogger Glenn Greenwald.

So Congress rejected the change that the administration secrectly enacted (and had publicly labeled as perhaps unconstitutional). As Ygelsias notes, the larger issue isn't so much that the administration changed the standard, it's that the administration decided it would police itself in "enforcing" the new standard. 

My question in all this is a media one: How much, if at all, will the papers pick up on the new, blogger-broken, wrinkle? I'm guessing a short mention somewhere inside.

Donde Estas, WH Katrina Report?

Remember in the weeks after Katrina how the White House promised an internal probe of the  disaster-related screw-ups? Right, well I  forgot too. After all, it's been, what, five months, and nary a word on the probe.

But don't fret. The White House has not been sitting still. No, no. The WH staff has been working very hard--to oppose the Senate's investigation.  From the AP:

WASHINGTON -- The White House is hampering a Senate inquiry into the government's response to Hurricane Katrina by barring administration officials from answering questions and by not handing over documents, senators leading the probe said yesterday.

In some cases, staff members at the White House and other federal agencies have declined to be interviewed by congressional investigators, said the top Republican, Susan M. Collins of Maine, and the ranking Democrat, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

And from the NYT's list of those who declined to testify:

In response to questions later from a reporter, the deputy White House spokesman, Trent Duffy, said the administration had declined requests to provide testimony by Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff; Mr. Card's deputy, Joe Hagin; Frances Fragos Townsend, the domestic security adviser; and her deputy, Ken Rapuano.

Frances Townsend. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, right. Apart from stonewalling the Senate's Katrina's investigation, she's leading the WH's Katrina "probe." Should be a doozy.

"Taking the Gloves Off" and the Sanctions Away

Yesterday, a military jury let a torturer off with nary a slap. Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. was convicted of "negligent homicide"--for having overseen the beating-to-death of an Iraqi general.  Welshofer's sentence: 60 days house arrest, and a whopping $6,000 fine.  As the LAT points out:

The jury apparently agreed with defense arguments that Welshofer had believed he was following orders to use creative interrogation techniques when he put Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush face-first in a sleeping bag, wrapped him in electrical wire and sat on his chest in November 2003. The 57-year-old general died after 20 minutes in the bag....

Welshofer had contended that he was following vague instructions from U.S. commanders in Iraq to "take the gloves off" and break detainees to obtain more information about the insurgency that was killing increasing numbers of U.S. troops.

Vague instructions don't mean you can oversee the beating on a prisoner. There's no ambiguity about that in military law. But in another sense, the jury was right: Those nod-nod-wink-wink orders meant something--and higher-ups should bear  responsbility for issuing them. (I don't only mean that in a moral sense; I mean that as a matter of doctrine, higher-ups are always responsible for their orders.) In other words, both the soldier and officers should be held responsible for their actions and orders. The number of higher-ups that have faced courts martial because of torture-related orders? Zero. Number of investigations that have looked up the chain-of-command? Right. 

P.S. Marc Cooper also has a good and outraged take.

The Coming Hamas Quandry

Polls show Hamas running a close second for tomorrow's Palestinian elections. Would Hamas' winning--or being part of a governing coalition--be a bad thing? Seems an absurd question. But my colleague Bob Wright makes the argument that it would be a good thing. Bob's point: Drawing radical/terrorist groups into politics is a net plus, it moderates them.

I tend to agree. Not that we (or at least I) really want Hamas to win outright. I don't want them gaining whatever power the Palestinian Authority still has. But I do want them to be involved politically. That's because in order to win wide support among voters, they'd have to tack center (just like presidential candidates do here in the U.S.)

Meanwhile, the U.S. has hinted it won't recognize a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. That's understandable, and in my mind, wrong-headed. The goal should be to co-opt these guys. To do that, you have to offer incentives as well as potential sticks. If you tell them that you won't recognize them as political players, what incentive are you giving them to drop their arms and become...political players?*

*The morals of this make me squirm a bit. But squeamishness shouldn't stop us from doing what's right, in sense that it offers the best chances for stability, peace, and all those other nice things.