ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Gonzales Offers Tortured Defense Of His Pro-Torture Past

gonzo-and-dickIn an interview with Law.com, disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attempts to walk back pro-torture arguments he made to President Bush, claiming that he was only criticizing isolated provisions such as “a requirement that you provide athletic uniforms, commissary privileges, scientific instruments, [and] a monthly allowance” to detainees. According to Gonzales, “I didn’t mean to say that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions requiring basic humane treatment were outdated. No, I didn’t say that.”

Gonzales’ attempt to whitewash his previous statement, however, does not jibe with the facts. Here’s what Gonzales actually wrote in a 2002 memo to President Bush:

The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.

So while Gonzales did indeed criticize provisions which supposedly require the United States to provide detainees with athletic uniforms and scientific instruments, he also clearly rejects the Geneva Conventions’ limits on torture and other abusive interrogation techniques as “obsolete.”

Moreover even if Gonzales’ defense of his prior views could be taken at face value, they, at best, reveal him to be a completely incompetent attorney. Many of the provisions Gonzales labels as “quaint” simply do not exist. For example, nothing in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War requires a detaining power to provide detainees with “athletic uniforms” or “scientific instruments.” The only provisions which even vaguely resemble such a requirement are Article 27, which mandates that detainees must be given appropriate “[c]lothing, underwear and footwear,” and Article 72, which provides that detention guards cannot seize mail sent to detainees which contains harmless items such as “scientific instruments” and “sports outfits.”

Similarly, while the Geneva Convention does include provisions requiring that detainees be given access to a kind of store, such provisions exist solely to ensure that the detainees most basic needs are met. Under the heading of “QUARTERS FOOD AND CLOTHING OF PRISONERS OF WAR,” Article 28 provides that a “canteen” must be set up in prisoner of war camps which provides necessities such as “foodstuffs” and “soap” (possibly because many prisoners of war are addicted to cigarettes when they are captured, the convention also provides for access to tobacco). To enable detainees to obtain food and soap from the canteen, Article 60 provides for prisoners to receive a modest “advance of pay.”

In other words, the “commissary” and “scrip” provided for under the Convention are really just a way of ensuring that the detainees basic needs are provided for. It is a mechanism to feed and clean detainees, not a requirement that detainee camps house their very own Wal-Mart.

Despite his attempts to whitewash the past, the meaning of Gonzales’ 2002 memo is clear. Gonzales believed that Geneva’s ban on detainee mistreatment is “render[ed] obsolete” by modern day terrorism; and he affirmatively misrepesented the contents of the Geneva Convention in a memo to the President of the United States.

Security

Michael Savage: ‘Illegal Aliens’ Are An ‘Invading Organism’

Yesterday, “shock jock” radio host Michael Savage went into a nonsensical rant about how his father used to take him to the “filthy dirty” lower East Side so that he would develop an immunity to “microbes.” Somehow, his childhood story led him to conclude that undocumented immigrants are like invading snails, and Americans are the local clams and oysters that must contend with an “invading organism“:

“Why do you think that an invading snail can be dropped in the bay from off a back of a ship. It comes — let’s say from China — in a back of a freighter and it swims off in a bay in America. And it wipes out all the local clams. It wipes out the oysters because it’s hardier and the local oysters don’t have an immunity to it. It’s the same with invading cultures. Put your moronic heads together. The illegal aliens, whether you love them or you don’t love them, are an invading organism in a certain way. On a biological level you know I’m right.”

Listen:

While Savage worries about invading snails, the British government is more concerned with keeping out people who foster extremism and hatred. That’s why Savage’s name was added to a list of people who would be detained and refused entry by British immigration authorities if he attempted to visit the country.

Climate Progress

‘Stress’ is shrinking polar bears

Polar bear tongue

The BBC reports:

Polar bears have shrunk over the last century, according to research.

Scientists compared bear skulls from the early 20th Century with those from the latter half of the century.

Their study, in the Journal of Zoology, describes changes in size and shape that could be linked an increase in pollution and the reduction in sea ice.

Physical “stress” caused by pollutants in the bears’ bodies, and the increased effort needed to find food, could limit the animals’ growth, the team said.

Okay, it’s not most important climate story in the world, but it does let me use the above photo again.  I should note that the NYT‘s Revkin blogged last month, “More Polar Bear Populations in Decline“:

There is rising concern among  polar bear biologists that the big recent summertime retreats of sea ice in the Arctic are already harming some populations of these seal-hunting predators. That was one conclusion of the  Polar Bear Specialist Group, a network of bear experts who  met last week in Copenhagen to review the latest data (and data gaps) on the 19 discrete populations of polar bears around the Arctic. The group, part of the  International Union for Conservation of Nature, includes biologists in academia and government and at nonprofit conservation organizations. Only one bear population is increasing (in the Canadian high Arctic), while eight are declining in numbers, the scientists said. At its last meeting, in 2005, the group concluded that five populations were in decline. Three populations appear to be stable and seven are too poorly monitored to gauge a trend.

As for the new study, here’s the abstract for “Craniometric characteristics of polar bear skulls from two periods with contrasting levels of industrial pollution and sea ice extent” (subs. req’d):

Read more

Politics

Fox News’ Shep Smith debunks McCain’s charge that reconciliation would be a ‘drastic change.’

This afternoon in his town hall, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he is “unalterably opposed” to using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform. “It would be a drastic change in the way that the United States Senate does business.” Fox News’ Shep Smith fact-checked McCain’s claim immediately upon the conclusion of the town hall. “The truth is Republicans used this in 2001, 2003, and 2005 to pass then-President George Bush’s tax cuts,” Smith said. Armed with some research, he then reported this quote from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH):

“Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate (that) has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions.” … “Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don’t think so. … The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win.”

Smith concluded that if Democrats “were to take health care and put it in under reconciliation, they could do that.” Watch it:


Update

Matt Finkelstein has more.

Climate Progress

Global Boiling: ‘Global Warming Is A Medical Emergency’

Record HeatAs the debate over rising health care costs reaches a fever pitch, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) warns that “global warming is a medical emergency.” In a press teleconference unveiling a new report on the human cost of increased heat waves, PSR executive director Peter Wilk, M.D. described global warming as “one of the gravest health emergencies facing humanity today”:

Global warming is one of the gravest health emergencies facing humanity today. It’s life threatening, it’s affecting us now, and if we don’t take bold and effective action, it could dramatically affect how we life on earth.

More Extreme Heat Waves: Global Warming’s Wake Up Call,” jointly issued by PSR and the National Wildlife Federation, explains that scientists have found that global boiling will disproportionately threaten the health of the very old and very young, as well as the poor and those who live in big cities: Read more

Yglesias

Endgame

What are we fighting for:

— A biography of Ahmed Shah Massoud.

— Alyssa Rosenberg wrongly proclaims “Motorcycle Driveby” to be the best Third Eye Blind song.

— Gasoline taxes in the United States are insanely low.

Constitutional hipsters.

IKEA as entertainment in China.

— Tim Donaghy back in jail.

— Activists pressing Obama administration to get tougher on Sudan.

I think the real best Third Eye Blind song is “How’s It Gonna Be” but I wouldn’t totally discount “Jumper” either.

Politics

Rep. Trent Franks signs onto the birther bill.

WorldNetDaily (via Dave Weigel) reports that Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) has signed onto H.R. 1503, the so-called “birther bill” that would require presidential candidates to submit copies of their birth certificates. Franks is now the 10th co-sponsor to Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) legislation. Earlier this week, Franks admitted to a town hall audience that he had considered filing a lawsuit against Barack Obama on the birther issue, even though in the past, he has affirmed that the President is “a constitutionally natural-born citizen of this country.”

Politics

McCain attacks White House solicitation of PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin’s support — which he solicited in ’07.

At a town hall today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacked the controversial deal supposedly struck between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry on health care reform. According to McCain, the deal was an example of the “special interests” getting “a seat at the table.” “The lobbyist for the drug companies, a guy named Tauzin who makes over a million dollars a year went to the White House and he was quoted, he was quoted across this country when he says, and I quote: ‘We assured, we need somebody to come in first, if you come in first, you will have a rock solid deal.’” Watch it:

The deal with PhRMA, which has been heavily criticized by the left, does raise questions, but it is odd to hear McCain criticize someone for soliciting the support of Billy Tauzin. In 2007, Tauzin contributed to McCain’s presidential campaign. When The Hill reported on the contribution in April 2008, Tauzin’s spokesman said, “Sen. McCain put out a call for help and Billy…answered it.”

Security

Climate Change Expert Slams Premise Of Environmental Argument Against Immigration

Today, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) held an event to discuss the “environmental impact of immigration-driven population growth.” The panel discussion revolved around a paper authored by philosophy professor Philip Cafaro of Colorado State University entitled “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States.” Cafaro identifies stopping immigration-driven population growth as a requisite to becoming “good global environmental citizens.” CIS’ Steven Camarota took the claim a step farther and argued that immigration reform would be a lot easier to pass than climate change legislation, so therefore the US should focus less on emissions caps and more on immigration caps.

Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and George Mason University professor Andrew Light challenged the very premise of the argument and warned against understanding climate change in terms of overpopulation and immigration. Light first wondered out loud about why the topic of immigration was being dragged into a conversation about population and argued that more focus should be placed on reducing the carbon footprint of those who are in the US — regardless of how they entered the country. He also pointed out that even if he were to accept CIS’ premise that people should live in parts of the world where they would do less harm, it would make more sense to actually encourage migration away from regions of high biological diversity along the equator to places of less bio mass, like the US. Light also highlighted the fact that Mexico has proposed one of the most progressive climate change policies, and the diplomatic fallout that could result from shutting down the borders and cutting off immigration could prove much more environmentally devastating than the CO2 emissions of immigrants. He encourages panelists to “talk about carrots before we talk about sticks” and avoid resorting to draconian policy recommendations. Watch it:

During the question and answer session, a representative from the League of United Latin American Citizens questioned the intellectual credibility of CIS’ argument considering the fact that it has been labeled a “hate anti-immigrant group.” Camarota called the claim “absurd on its base,” and while he’s right that no progressive group has labeled CIS a hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center has described CIS as “the nativist lobby’s supposedly ‘independent’ think tank” which “has never found any aspect of immigration it likes.” Several groups which are designated hate groups such as the American Immigration Control Foundation and the Federation for American Immigration Reform have also made the same environmental argument against immigration that was presented by CIS. The question that immediately followed the confrontation illustrated the type of nativist supporters CIS has picked up:

“Being this the Center for Immigration Studies, there are several factors you consider. But I have not heard a very important factor that has not been mentioned here. See it Europe, see it Denmark, see it France, see it England, see Holland — they have had enormous problems because of the immigration they took. Not because of ecological consequences, no, because they brought new values. And this is extremely dangerous for a society. And this is what we must consider in this country — the values that the people that come in bring with them. Because this is the main cause of the fall of the Roman Empire: the immigration.”

Watch it:

Yglesias

Fear of a White Electorate

Charles Murray has a chart:

murray-gss

And some odd commentary on the chart:

The graph is based exclusively on non-Latino whites (because that’s who the book is about). If you want to see a visual representation of the development of the bubble that Barack Obama has been living in since he left Hawaii, that graph is it. Judging from the GSS data, every white socioeconomic class in America has become more conservative in the last four decades, with the Traditional Middles moving the most decisively rightward. But the Intellectual Uppers have not just moved slightly in the other direction, they have careened in the other direction.

They won the election with a candidate who sounded centrist running against an exceptionally weak Republican opponent. But they’ve been in the bubble too long. They really think that the rest of America thinks as they do. Nothing but the Pauline Kael syndrome can explain the political idiocy of letting Attorney General Eric Holder go after the interrogators.

Obviously one point to make is that Eric Holder is supposed to make decisions based on the law, rather than based on partisan political considerations.

Another point, however, would be that it’s very odd to assert that Eric Holder and Barack Obama have spent the past several decades living in a bubble that consists entirely of non-Latino whites. They probably see Steven Chu and Eric Shinseki and Hilda Solis and Gary Locke at the cabinet meetings, among other things.

You also, honestly, have to be pretty detached from reality to think John McCain was a weak candidate. In November of 2008, he had a 61 percent favorable rating which is pretty darn good. The 2008 election just happened to pit two different popular politicians against each other.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up