Of all the dumb things…

The Raw Story

…Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama is again facing questions about his patriotism from some conservative blogs — this time for apparently failing to put his hand over his heart during a rendition of the national anthem at an Iowa campaign event….

I was there. I wrote about this over a month ago:

…A singer performed the national anthem with pre-recorded accompaniment. Her rendition was heartfelt and definitely unique. Most people would have had difficulty singing along with her. I noticed that all of the candidates except Obama held their hands over their hearts. Obama held his hands folded in front of him throughout [This is not criticism – the “hand over the heart” looked awkward on the stage – I was standing in the same fashion as Obama]…

Barack Obama stood respectfully for the “Star Spangled Banner” and paid respectful attention to the singer.

Did I somehow miss the memo concerning the orthodoxy of our demeanor during any and all renditions of our national anthem?

Only an idiot would question the patriotism of any individual active in public service. Only the idiot spawn of an idiot would question the patriotism of a United States Senator. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would question the patriotism of a presidential candidate.

Now, does anyone around here have any remaining doubts that the right wingnuts will go after the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, no matter who that is?

The act of public service, or serving as a United States Senator, or running for president is inherently patriotic. And each certainly trumps the self righteous pearl clutching mouth covered gasps of the Mighty Wurlitzer and their cable network enablers.

The stupid, it burns.

Senate district five is as downtown as it gets:  its eastern edge is the Mississip.  It’s a district where the Republicans may not even put up a candidate, so the primary is the general election.  And in the primary, we have two black candidates already declared (Robin and Rodney) and a white candidate, Tom Villa, likely to enter the race. 

District five is a majority African-American district, but not by a huge margin (58 percent), thus making any white candidate a potential spoiler.  Even if Vila, who is a conservative Democrat, doesn’t enter the race, Robin says she would expect a spoiler.

The split of the black vote distresses African-American leaders in the city, inasmuch as the other two senate seats from within the city limits are held by whites:  Jeff Smith and Harry Kennedy.  The notion of three white senators from a city with such a high proportion of African-Americans has them wringing their hands.  Still, no white candidate can afford to be cocky about winning.  Both Hubbard and Wright Jones can garner lots of votes.

Robin, as the only progressive in the race, will appeal to the city’s liberal central corridor.  The Central West End includes a lot of white voters.  Nor is Rodney expected to confine himself to North St. Louis where he’s best known.  He’ll work that central corridor as well, and insiders all agree that he’s a workhorse of a campaigner.

Robin also expects that she’ll draw votes from voters of both races as the only woman in the primary.  As far as she’s concerned, being a woman and a progressive will be a strong combo.

As for Rodney’s stronghold, North St. Louis, Robin vows that she’s not scared of that.  She was raised there, lived there until seven years ago, and has lots of community ties.

She wouldn’t be in the race if she didn’t think she had a good chance to win, but, even aside from the threat of a spoiler, Rodney is tough competition.  One reason is that Robin got a late start with fundraising.  In September, she took a fall while exercising and hit her face. She didn’t want to start the race, as she says, looking like the elephant man.  Right now she has about $4000, with commitments from many small donors that should amount to something in the five figures for the coming quarter.

While she was waiting to get started, though, Rodney sewed up a bunch of endorsements, including Lacy Clay’s–and raised $82,000.  It’s true that $30,000 of that came from Rex Sinquefield and may have to be given back if the Ethics Commission rules that over-limit funds must be returned.  But if so, Sinquefield is set to return those funds via the 100 PACs he just set up.

Let’s see then.  Rodney has money, energy, and popularity in his House district.  Robin has progressive views and supporters, community ties in Rodney’s district as well as her own, and the advantage of being the only woman in the race.  The two of them face the likelihood of a white spoiler.  It’s going to be a hell of a horse race. 

A guy is in Manhattan in a hotel next to the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The hotel is evacuated and he’s not able to take all of his belongings with him. Later he tries to claim his belongings from the hotel – a passport, a religious book, and other items. Somehow the FBI is apprised of the situation – the claim is made that a radio transceiver was found with those belongings. The FBI interviews the guy. The guy says “that’s not my radio.” The FBI continues, more or less saying, “‘fess up, or we’ll turn your family over to people who’ll make their life miserable.” He confesses, out of fear for his family, in a confused sort of way. Later, an airline pilot shows up to recover his belongings and tells the hotel, “Where’s my radio?” There’s no connection between the two individuals.

Oopsie.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, Section 2340. (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from – (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (3) “United States” includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

It gets worse.

October 21, 2007

A tale of two decisions (or, how the FBI gets you to confess)

….As I read the opinion I realized it was a 44 page epic, too long for me to print out. I blogged about the opinion while I read it online and then posted the blog as I ate lunch. Then something strange happened: a few minutes after I posted the blog, the opinion vanished from the Court of Appeals website! I had never seen this before, and what made all the more strange was that it involved a coerced confession over 9/11. What the hell was going on?

I let some other legal bloggers know about this, particular[l]y the How Appealing blog and Appellate Law and Practice. They both ran a commentary on the missing opinion. Then someone sent How Appealing a PDF of the decision (probably very few of them were floating around since the opinion was posted for a brief period of time) and How Appealing posted the decis[i]on.

Then things got even stranger. The Court of Appeals actually phoned How Appealing to request that he remove the opinion from his website since it contained classified information. The Court said that a revised opinion would come out the next day without the classified information. How Appealing actually refused to remove the opinion. Through it all, hundreds of people came to my legal blog to see my summary of the opinion. It was either my blog or printing out and reading a 44 page epic….

Here’s the reissued decision:

05-4148-cv
Higazy v. Millenium Hotel and Resorts
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________
August Term, 2005
(Argued: June 23, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2007)

….[page 7]This opinion has been redacted because portions of the record are under seal. For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, Templeton did not contest that Higazy’s statements were coerced….

When will people learn that once you hit “enter” on your keyboard it’s out on the Internets forever? I believe the legal turn of phrase is “you can’t unring the bell.”

Here’s what was reportedly in the original  on October 18, 2007 [posted at How Appealing] with the REDACTED section indicated:

…The government expressed its doubt that a polygraph of Higazy would be useful and opposed Higazy’s request to take one. They explained that if Higazy was a member of al Qaeda, he could pass it. Nevertheless, on December 27, Templeton-who up until this point was not involved in the investigation-conducted a polygraph examination of Higazy. Templeton began the test by asking Higazy background questions on subjects such as Higazy’s scholarship, homeland, family in Egypt, brother in upstate New York, and girlfriend. He also asked Higazy whether he had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. The first round of testing allegedly suggested that Higazy’s answers to the questions relating to the September 11 attacks were deceptive. As the second series of questioning was ending, Higazy requested that Templeton stop. He testified that he began “feeling intense pain in my arm. I remember hearing my heartbeat in my head and I just couldn’t breathe. I said, ‘Sir, sir, please, stop. It hurts. Please stop. Please take it off.'” Templeton unhooked the polygraph, and according to Higazy, called Higazy a baby and told him that a nine-year-old could tolerate this pain. Templeton left the room to get Higazy water, and upon his return, Higazy asked whether anybody else had ever suffered physical pain during the polygraph, to which Templeton replied: “[i]t never happened to anyone who told the truth.”

Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should cooperate [REDACTED TEXT BEGINS], and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother “live in scrutiny” and would “make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell.” Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: “that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don’t advise people of their rights, they don’t – yeah, probably about torture, sure.”

Higazy later said, “I knew that I couldn’t prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger.” He explained that “[t]he only thing that went through my head was oh, my God, I am screwed and my family’s in danger. If I say this device is mine, I’m screwed and my family is going to be safe. If I say this device is not mine, I’m screwed and my family’s in danger. And Agent Templeton made it quite clear that cooperate had to mean saying something else other than this device is not mine.”

Higazy explained why he feared for his family:

The Egyptian government has very little tolerance for anybody who is -they’re suspicious of being a terrorist. To give you an idea, Saddam’s security force-as they later on were called his henchmen-a lot of them learned their methods and techniques in Egypt; torture, rape, some stuff would be even too sick to . . . . My father is 67. My mother is 61. I have a brother who developed arthritis at 19. He still has it today. When the word ‘torture’ comes at least for my brother, I mean, all they have to do is really just press on one of these knuckles. I couldn’t imagine them doing anything to my sister.

And Higazy added:

[L]et’s just say a lot of people in Egypt would stay away from a family that they know or they believe or even rumored to have anything to do with terrorists and by the same token, some people who actually could be -might try to get to them and somebody might actually make a connection. I wasn’t going to risk that. I wasn’t going to risk that, so I thought to myself what could I say that he would believe. What could I say that’s convincing? And I said okay.
[REDACTED TEXT ENDS]

Higazy then gave Templeton a series of explanations as to how he obtained the radio. First, he admitted that he stole the radio from J&R, an electronics store. Then he recanted this story, and explained that he found it near J&R. Higazy next denied ever seeing or possessing the radio. Templeton allegedly banged on the table and screamed at Higazy: “You lied to me again! This is what? How many lies?” Higazy then lied again, this time telling Templeton that he found the radio on the other side of the Brooklyn Bridge. Higazy recalled that Templeton “turned so red I thought he was going to hit me.” Templeton accused Higazy of being a liar, and said that he would “tell Agent Sullivan in my expert opinion you are a terrorist.” Finally, Higazy told Templeton that he had stolen the radio from the Egyptian military and had used it to eavesdrop on telephone conversations.

Templeton then wrote out a statement providing that Higazy had stolen the radio from the Egyptian military, which he asked Higazy to sign. Higazy remembered that his attorney was outside, and asked to see his attorney. At first, Higazy’s attorney was angry with Higazy, thinking Higazy had lied to him, but when Higazy told his attorney that he had not lied to him, the attorney advised Higazy not to sign the statement.

The parties appeared the following day, December 28, 2001, for the previously scheduled hearing before Judge Rakoff. At the hearing, the government proffered its “new evidence,” apparently the information gained during the polygraph interview: “[Higazy] has admitted it is his radio, and he has provided I believe about three different versions of where it came from.” Judge Rakoff commented, “it no longer strikes me as even an arguably close call whether to detain him, given the apparent unreliability or inconsistency between what was previously represented and what I am now being advised is the situation.” The parties agreed to adjourn the bail hearing; Higazy’s attorney did not object to the government’s request that bail be denied and Higazy be further detained. Judge Rakoff ordered Higazy detained and instructed the parties to appear before him on January 14, 2002.

On January 11, 2002, Agent Bruno filed a criminal complaint against Higazy for making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001(a). Higazy was brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Maas, M.J.), where the government implied that Higazy’s false statements were somehow connected to the investigation of the September 11 terrorist attacks: “[t]he crime that was being investigated when these false statements were repeatedly made I think can fairly be characterized as perhaps the most serious in our country’s history.” In its bail argument, the government alluded to Higazy’s “three different versions of how he had come into possession of the radio,” and concluded that Higazy “is not somebody who can be deemed trustworthy.” Magistrate Judge Maas ordered Higazy to be detained and held without bail.

Three days later, on January 14, 2002, an airline pilot, who had been staying on the 50th floor of the Millenium Hotel returned to the hotel to reclaim his property. After inspecting his items, the pilot informed the hotel staff that his transceiver was missing. Millenium immediately contacted the FBI, which then verified that what was thought to be Higazy’s transceiver was in fact the pilot’s and that the pilot had not had any interaction with Higazy. The FBI reinterviewed Ferry, who revised his original account, this time explaining that the radio was found on a table in Higazy’s room and not in the safe. The government withdrew its complaint against Higazy, who was released on January 16, 2002, after thirty-four days in custody….

We used to have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights.

Patterico, October 21, 2007:

…My judgment is that the material was sealed, not to protect anyone from harm, but to protect the government from embarrassment…..

….Namely, you have an FBI agent who admits that he threatened to ensure that a suspect’s family would be tortured by a foreign government.

Somehow, I think that’s the reason the information was submitted under seal….

Uh, you think?

If this was a one time incident do you think anyone would have bothered acting to suppress information about it in this fashion?

Robin Wright Jones, running against Rodney Hubbard for the open state senate seat in district five, calls herself a 100 percent progressive.  She backs that statement up by noting that ProVote gives her 100 percent on her voting record on progressive issues (as opposed to Hubbard’s 44 percent).

District five runs along the Mississippi River from the Chain of Rocks bridge to the River Des Peres and to the west, zig zags between Grand and Kingshighway.  The population is 58 percent African-American, and many of the residents–of both races–are poor.  Those neighborhoods, she feels, need progressive representation in the legislature.

One of the issues Robin is most passionate about is the fate of the troubled city school district.  She told me, when I interviewed her by phone on Monday morning, that she sees the state takeover of city schools as part of the bigger picture of Republican attack, via No Child Left Behind, on this country’s public schools.  (If that seems like a grandiose claim to you, read my posting “Of All the Nerve”.  No Child Left Behind is aimed straight at the destruction of public education.) 

Robin’s background explains her passion for public education.  First, she’s a former teacher herself.  Second, as a single parent, she raised two boys in North St. Louis, back in the eighties when the crime rate there was at its highest.  She sent her sons to the public schools, to the Academy of Math and Science, a magnet school, where they excelled.  They were each in the top five in their class, scholar-athletes who are now college graduates with good jobs. 

So Robin knows and believes that good things can and still do happen in the city schools, and it weighs on her to see them underfunded and turned over to an appointed school board that has no plans to improve them.  She says that when she has talked to Rick Sullivan, the head of the appointed board–well, maybe he’s the appointed head.  Blunt hasn’t allowed the senate to vote to confirm him, so legal problems are likely brewing over any decisions he makes–but anyway, when she’s talked to Sullivan, he’s all about the takeover with nothing to say about how to improve the schools.  The elected board, on the other hand, is headed by Peter Downs, a parent in the district who is committed to improving the schools.  Wright Jones would much prefer to see the elected board in charge. 

In any case, she opposes tuition tax credits for private schools and disapproves of her opponent, Rodney Hubbard, for accepting $30,000 from Rex Sinquefield [pictured in an ad at left].  She predicts that taking that path will harm not only city schools but all Missouri schools in the long run.

The schools will not make headway, though, Robin knows, without a variety of parallel improvements.  Her background as a public housing administrator has made her sensitive to the ways that each problem of the poor exacerbates all the others.  Until decent jobs help stabilize families–jobs that have disappeared as our government has allowed outsourcing–kids won’t have their basic needs met.  In that environment, they’re not educable.

New York mayor Ed Koch once said that a city must have viable schools, firemen, and police forces.  You need all three or you don’t have a city.  Robin points to the troubles with all three in St. Louis–state takeover of the schools, the demotion of fire chief Sherman George and the vote of no confidence in police chief Mokwa.

What then, I asked, should be done to help the city deal with its problems?  Wright Jones says that, for the time being, Democrats can only fight a holding action.  The situation in the city cannot significantly improve until we have a Democratic legislature and governor.

I published two postings last week here and here about Rodney Hubbard.  Tomorrow, I’ll provide another posting about Robin Wright Jones. 

My husband and I have a bone to pick with the government.  We’re retired teachers and as such, we’re being denied social security benefits we earned. 

In Missouri–as in fifteen other states–teachers do not pay into social security.  They have their own pension system, the Public School Retirement System.  But many teachers work extra jobs to supplement their teaching income.  Many others (about 25 percent) went into teaching as a second career after paying into social security for years or moved here after teaching in a state where teachers contribute to social security. 

Such people get some social security benefits but far from what they earned.  The amount varies widely, anywhere from one sixth of what they earned to one third.  Denying them their benefits is just flat wrong. 

It burns my buns to know that the FICA tax is not levied on income over $102,000.  That has to be part of the reason it is deemed fiscally imprudent to pay social security benefits to teachers who’ve earned them.  People earning over $102,000 aren’t paying their share, even though they can afford to.

Nor are teachers who paid into social security the only ones getting short shrift.  Retired teachers whose spouses paid into social security do not get the same benefits as other people when their spouses die or are disabled.

A teacher in Illinois explains the injustice:

I am a retired teacher after 40 years of service. I am currently drawing a teacher’s retirement in Illinois. When I become 65 I will be unable to draw anything on my husband’s Social Security, even though he has been disabled for 20 years and I have been the sole support of the family.

On the other hand, his cousin, who has never worked a day in her life, draws Social Security on her husband’s benefits. Is this fair? Of course not!

The Missouri NEA, along with the NEA from the fourteen other affected states, has petitioned Congress for action on the two statutes that mandate these inequities, and bills are now in committee, one in the House and one in the Senate, to redress these problems.

Although support for them is stronger among the Democrats, it is bipartisan.  In the Missouri House delegation, Jo Ann Emerson and Roy Blunt have joined three of the four Democrats (Ike Skelton opposes it).  Bond–no surprise–opposes it.  McCaskill not only supports it, she’s a co-sponsor and says, “It is my hope that Congress will move quickly to pass this important legislation into law.”

As to whether there’s any realistic chance of both chambers passing the bills, I don’t know, but even if they did, this plea for fairness would fall on deaf ears at the White House, you can be sure.  Bush may not even be aware that such legislation is being considered.  But I think I can safely predict that the man who vetoed health care for poor kids and who worked to deconstruct social security won’t suddenly show his empathetic side.

Still, the issue is at least percolating in Congress.  Maybe 2009 will produce some results.  Meantime, people like Kathleen Hutchins are watching:

My recently retired husband had to take out an expensive life insurance policy because he knew if anything happened to him, because I am a teacher, I would lose SS benefits that he has paid into all his life. My own SS benefits will be nearly non-existent. We only ask for what we have worked hard for all these years.

On the morning shows I heard someone mention that the Republican candidates for President were off speaking to the “Value Voters”.  By that I assumed they were off speaking to the Family Research Council. FRC values used to be referred to as “Family Values” which means stuff like heterosexual marriage, anti-choice positions and attending services on Sunday.  But now it is just “Value” as if the word value means all of these things, rather than meaning that heterosexual marriage, anti-choice positions and attending services on Sunday comprise a particular set of some values. Even the word “values” has morphed into the word “value”, which construes a more pointed and limited meaning. 

Properly defined, values are individual judgments of merit or worth of someone or something based on personal belief and opinion. And if this is the case, it seems that we should all be deemed “Value Voters”. because we are all constantly making judgments regarding all sorts of things. So then, why shouldn’t we be called “Value Voters” as well?  Well! We all know that it is because the Right has captured the market on provocative “feelings” language. And, as we all know that it was Ronald Reagan, who used this tool so effectively.  In fact, he used it so well that people didn’t care whether or not they shared his particular values, but because of his authenticity and, genuineness in communicating these values, they connected with him, they came to trust him, and the foothold gained by the right has been enormous. 

At the FRC, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stole the show with an onsite straw poll showing him walking away with over 51% of the vote. Second placer Romney trailed with 10.40%.  CBN David Brody describes Huckabee’s speech as follows:

Finally, he came with a very straightforward purpose. He told the crowd that he’s one of them. He is a value voter. The crowd gave him standing ovation after standing ovation.

The speech was part policy, part tent revival. He was in full Pastor mode throwing out the Bible references left and right. The people I talked to afterwards were very impressed.

TheoCon values were the theme of his show-stealing diatribe:

“Sometimes we talk about why we’re importing so many people in our workforce,” the former Arkansas governor said. “It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973.”

Huckabee also spoke adamantly of the need for conservative lawmakers to show no compromise on fighting for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman. “I’m very tired of hearing people who are unwilling to change the constitution, but seem more than willing to change the holy word of God as it relates to the definition of marriage,” he said.

Could it be that the TheoCons have found their man?

George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute believes that values are more important that issues in carrying elections. He claims that for too long Progressives have been ineffective in communicating their values, which include freedom, equality, human dignity and tolerance.  He and his team pick up the gauntlet and give us a framework in which to define progressive values and the methods to celebrate those values and make them work for us. In light of the frenzy  of the Republican candidates in wooing the FRC, I suspect that polls indicate we will be needing them.  I will be posting sections of Lakoff’s writings later this week.