Month: February 2008

New Rules

by digby

There is a lot of sturm and drang about this idea of superdelegates deciding the election, with people like Donna Brazile threatening to quit the party if they do. Here’s Chris Bowers:

If someone is nominated for POTUS from the Democratic Party despite another candidate receiving more poplar support from Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, I will resign as local precinct captain, resign my seat on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, immediately cease all fundraising for all Democrats, refuse to endorse the Democratic “nominee” for any office, and otherwise disengage from the Democratic Party through all available means of doing so.

This is not a negotiable position. If the Democratic Party does not nominate the candidate for POTUS that the majority (or plurality) of its participants in primaries and caucuses want it to nominate, then I will quit the Democratic Party.

Kevin Drum has the same question I do about this:

… [W]ho decides what the popular will is anyway? Is it number of pledged delegates from the state contests? Total popular vote? Total number of states won? What about uncommitted delegates from primary states? Or caucus states, in which there’s no popular vote to consult and delegates are selected in a decidedly nondemocratic fashion to begin with? And what about all the independent and crossover voters? Personally, I’d just as soon they didn’t have a say in selecting the nominee of my party at all, but the rules say otherwise. If I’m a superdelegate, do I count their votes, or do I pore over exit polls to try to tease out how Democratic Party voters voted? And how do I take into account the obviously disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, two tiny states that have far more power than any truly democratic process would ever give them?

I’m not very excited at the idea of superdelegates deciding the nomination either, but the only way that will happen is if the primaries end up nearly tied in the first place. Then factor in the number of ways in which the primary/caucus process is nondemocratic from the get go, and it hardly seems practical to insist that superdelegates should all somehow divine a single “democratic” result from a very close race.

And then there is that fact that some pledge delegates are more heavily weighted depending on their past loyalty to the party or that they represent rural districts (as in Nevada), which results in more delegates being awarded for the same number of votes in some cases. Do you want the super-delegates to count them more or less? Caucuses tend to favor certain demographics and primaries others. Michigan and Florida had a whole bunch of actual humans pull a lever whose votes, under the rules, won’t be counted. There are all these superdelegates whose presence was designed to prevent another 1972-like debacle, but which now may actually trigger one. It’s a mess.

This is the problem with this argument. I am all for insisting that the decision be based upon the will of the people. But the system is so weird that I don’t think anyone can tell what that really will be if the party remains polarized.

So while I am certainly sympathetic to the notion that the elite fat cats shouldn’t decide for us, I think somebody needs to set forth some detailed criteria about how they should go about determining a more democratic way to decide this thing if there is a tie. Certainly the candidates are both hedging bets with this, which is perfectly understandable. This is shaping up to be trench warfare.

Personally, I don’t think we’ll have a tie much longer. It’s hard to see how either candidate can unify the country if they can’t demonstrate that they can unify the Democratic Party. Something has to break and I suspect voters will be the ones to do it.

.

Marin Alsop

by tristero

Last night I heard my friend Marin Alsop conduct the Baltimore Symphony at Carnegie Hall in a program of Strauss, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Mackey. There were two remarkable things about this concert.

First and foremost, the music-making was extraordinary. Alsop, conducting without a score, took deeply unusual approaches to the standard repertory, all the while conducting with the kind of passion that recalled Leonard Bernstein, under whom Alsop studied at Tanglewood.

Just as incredible was that this was Alsop’s formal debut at Carnegie, as the leader of a major American orchestra. And what made that so remarkable is that Marin is the first woman ever to do so. To be clear: What makes this so remarkable that it took until 2008 for this to happen, even given the enormous extent of Marin Alsop’s musical talent.

This should give pause to those amongst us who think sexism is a thing of the past. These days, it is more than likely that American conservatories are graduating a majority of women musicians. And it is a fact that today’s classical musicians are, as a group, the finest ever. Furthermore, many of the most interesting artists – Helene Grimaud, Angela Hewitt, Hilary Hahn, or Leila Josefowicz, for example – are women. But where are the conductors? And why was Marin, a world-class conductor, not appointed to a major post 15 years earlier?

Only sexism explains the tracking of women by music schools away from the serious study of orchestral conducting – only a few conductors have dared resist the prejudices. And only sexism explains why, in this day and age, we are seeing the first woman as head of a major orchestra debut debut at Carnegie Hall.

However, I think it is a mistake to reduce Alsop’s concert (or for that matter, her career) to a cultural/political moment, as that distracts from the music-making. First and foremost, what was on display last night was a great conductor practicing her art. Surely, Marin will enter American music history because of her gender, but had she been a man, she would also be in the history books as Lenny’s natural heir. She is an enormously talented conductor (and also a great proselytizer for classical music). There will be no asterisks to hedge her achievements.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Funny about Love

By Dennis Hartley

With Valentine’s Day approaching, I thought that I would share my top ten favorite romantic comedies with you this week. So in no particular ranking order, here we go:

Amelie– Easily the best European import since Wings of Desire, Jean-Pierre Juenet’s beautifully realized film explores similar themes of humanist romanticism, albeit with a lighter touch. Audrey Tautou literally lights up the screen as a “gregarious loner” who decides to become a guardian angel (sometimes benign devil) and commit random acts of anonymous kindness. The plight of Amelie’s “people in need” is suspiciously similar to her own-those who need that little push to come out of self-imposed exiles and revel in life’s simple pleasures. Of course, our heroine is really in search of her own happiness and fulfillment. Does she find it? You’ll have to see for yourself. Whimsical, original, unpretentious and life-affirming, Amelie is guaranteed to melt the most cynical of hearts.

Gregory’s Girl– Name the last “coming-of-age” teen comedy you saw that didn’t rely on a barrage of dick jokes or sex with pastries for laughs (OK, Juno comes close-but it’s an exception). I would have to go all the way back to 1981, for writer-director Bill Forsyth’s delightful examination of puppy love, Scottish style. Gawky teenager Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair) goes gaga for Dorothy (Dee Hepburn), a fellow soccer player on the school team. Gregory receives love advice from an unlikely mentor, his little sister (Allison Forster). His male classmates offer advice as well, but of course they are just as clueless as he is (although they put on airs of having deep insight on the subject of girls, naturally). In fact, Forsyth gets a lot of mileage out of that most basic truth about adolescence-the girls are usually light years ahead of the boys when it comes to the mysteries of love. Not as precious as you might think, as Forsyth is a master of low-key anarchy and understated irony. Some viewers may have trouble navigating the thick Scottish accents, but it is well worth the extra work. Also starring Clare Grogan, whom 80s music fans may recall as lead singer of Altered Images (their biggest hit was “I Could Be Happy”) and Red Dwarf fans will recognize as the original “Kristine Kochanski”.

Play It Again, Sam – I don’t know what it is about this particular Allen film, but no matter how many times I have viewed it over the years, I laugh just as hard at all the one-liners as I did the first time I saw it. Annie Hall and Manhattan may be his most highly lauded and artistically accomplished films, but for pure “laughs per minute”, I would nominate this 1972 entry, with a screenplay adapted by Allen from his own original stage version. Ironically, it’s the only “Woody Allen film” that wasn’t directed by him (those chores went to Herbert Ross). Allen portrays a film buff who is particularly obsessed with Humphrey Bogart. He fantasizes conversations with Bogie’s ghost (played to perfection by Jerry Lacy) who advises him on how to “be a man” and attract the perfect mate. He receives more pragmatic assistance from his best friends, a married couple (Diane Keaton and Tony Roberts) who fix him up with a series of women (the depictions of the various dating disasters are hilarious beyond description). A true comedy classic.

Modern Romance(1981) – Writer-director Albert Brooks nearly single-handedly invented the genre of “cringe comedy”, paving the way for Ricky Gervais and Larry David. In his best romantic comedy (co-written by frequent collaborator Monica Johnson), Brooks casts himself as a film editor who works for Roger Corman’s American International Pictures. His obsessive-compulsiveness makes him great at his job, but a royal pain-in-the-ass to his devoted girlfriend (Kathryn Harrold), who is becoming exasperated with his penchant for impulsively breaking up with her one day, then begging her to take him back the next. There are many inspired scenes, particularly a protracted sequence where a depressed Brooks takes Quaaludes and precedes to “drunk dial” every woman he’s ever dated (like Bob Newhart, Brooks is an absolute master of “the phone bit”). Another great scene features Brooks and his assistant editor (Bruno Kirby) laying down some low budget Foley tracks for a sequence in the cheesy sci-fi movie they’re working on. Brooks’ brother, Bob Einstein (a regular on Curb Your Enthusiasm) has a funny scene as a sportswear store clerk. Also with George Kennedy (as himself) and real-life director James L. Brooks (no relation) as Brooks’ boss.

Next Stop Wonderland – Writer/director Brad Anderson’s intelligent and easygoing fable about love and serendipity made me a Hope Davis fan for life. Davis plays a laid back Bostonian who finds her love life set adrift after her pompous environmental activist boyfriend (Philip Seymour Hoffman) suddenly decides that dashing off to save the earth is more important than sustaining their relationship. Her story is paralleled with that of a charming and unassuming single fellow (Alan Gelfant) who aspires to become a marine biologist. Both parties find themselves politely deferring to well-meaning friends and relatives who are constantly trying to fix them up with dates. I don’t think it’s a spoiler to tell you that these two are destined to end up together! The film seems to have been inspired by A Man and a Woman, right down to its breezy bossa nova/samba soundtrack.

She’s Gotta Have It– “Please baby please baby please baby please!” One of director Spike Lee’s earlier, funny films (his debut, actually). A sexy, hip, and fiercely independent young woman (Tracy Camilla Johns) juggles relationships with three men (who are all quite aware of each other’s existence). Lee steals his own movie by casting himself as the goofiest and most memorable of the three suitors- “Mars”, a hilarious trash-talking uptown version of the classic Woody Allen nebbish. Lee milks maximum laughs from the huffing and puffing by the competing paramours, as they each jockey for the alpha position (and makes keen observations about sexist machismo and male vanity along the way). Spike’s dad Bill Lee composed a lovely jazz-pop score. Despite being a little rough around the edges (due to low budget constraints) it was still a groundbreaking film in the context of modern independent cinema, and an empowering milestone for an exciting new wave of talented African-American filmmakers who followed in its wake.

Sherman’s March – Documentary filmmaker Ross McElwee is truly one of America’s hidden treasures. McElwee, a genteel Southern neurotic (think Woody Allen meets Tennessee Williams) has been documenting his personal life since the mid 70’s and managed to turn all that footage into some of the most hilarious, moving and thought-provoking films that most people have never seen. Audiences weaned on the glut of “reality TV” of recent years may wonder “what’s the big deal about one more schmuck making glorified home movies?” but they would be missing an enriching glimpse into the human condition. Sherman’s March actually began as a project to retrace the Union general’s path of destruction through the South, but somehow ended up as rumination on the eternal human quest for love and acceptance, filtered through McElwee’s personal search for the perfect mate. Despite its daunting 3 hour length, I’ve found myself returning to this film for repeat viewings over the years, and enjoying it just as much as the first time I saw it. The unofficial “sequel”, Time Indefinite, is worth a peek as well.

Someone To Love (1987) – The perfect Valentine’s Day movie…for dateless singles (ahem.) Writer-director Henry Jaglom’s films tend to polarize viewers. Jaglom reminds me of Ross McElwee in some ways; although his films aren’t technically “documentaries”, he is like McElwee in the sense that his work is highly personal, usually steeped in the obsessive self-examination of his own relationships with women. In Someone to Love, Jaglom plays (surprise surprise) a film director, who invites all of his friends who are currently “in between” relationships to join him at a condemned movie theatre on Valentine’s Day for a get-together. Once they arrive, Jaglom admits a small deception-he wants each to explain why they think they are alone on Valentine’s Day, and he wants to document the proceedings on film. Very talky-but fascinating, thought-provoking and (to my knowledge) a genuinely one-of-a-kind movie experience. Featuring Andrea Marcovicci (who had recently broken up with Jaglom at the time of filming), Sally Kellerman, musician Steven Bishop, and, erm, Orson Welles (don’t ask).

The Tall Guy – Whether it slipped under the public’s radar or was simply a victim of poor marketing is up for debate, but this gem of a sleeper should be required viewing for all romantic comedy fans. Deftly directed by British TV comic Mel Smith with a high-brow/low-brow blend of sophisticated cleverness and riotous vulgarity (somehow he makes it work), this is the stuff cult followings are made of. Jeff Goldblum is an American actor working on the London stage, who is love struck by an English nurse (Emma Thompson). Rowan Atkinson is a hoot as Goldblum’s employer, a London stage comic beloved by his audience but an absolute backstage terror to cast and crew. The most hilariously choreographed scene of “wild sex” ever put on film is worth the price of admission alone; and the extended set-piece, a staged musical version of The Elephant Man (a mercilessly funny Andrew Lloyd Webber parody) literally had me on the floor.

Two for the Road– A swinging 60s version of Scenes from a Marriage. Director Stanley Donen (Singin’ in the Rain) whips up a masterful cinematic soufflé here, folding in a sophisticated script by Frederick Raphael, a generous helping of Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn, and topping it all off with a real cherry of a score by the great Henry Mancini. Donen follows the travails of a married couple over the years of their relationship, by constructing a series of non-linear flashbacks and flash-forwards (a structural device that has been utilized since by other filmmakers, but rarely as effectively). While ostensibly a “romantic comedy”, Two For the Road is, at its heart, a thoughtful meditation on the nature of love and true commitment. Finney and Hepburn have great on-screen chemistry (and both were at the peak of their physical beauty-which doesn’t hurt). Colorful European locales provide additional icing on the cake. This is one of those films (like The Way We Were ) that some people form an emotional bond with.

.

Moderate Maverick

by digby

I keep hearing that John McCain is a great hero on the issue of torture. One would certainly think he would be, seeing as he was himself a victim of it. But it’s nonsense.

Here’s Julia at FDL giving St McCain some advice on how to appeal to the most bloodthirsty wingnuts:

Also he should point out as often as possible that his stance on the hot-button issue of torture is much more nuanced than he’s given credit for. After all, without Senator McCain’s intervention, if the United States violated the Geneva Convention and practiced torture on the president’s say so there was a clear and present danger that somebody might get into trouble over it …

As the talking dog points out, the McCain/Warner/Graham “compromise” with the White House means that the US reaffirms its commitment to the Geneva Conventions while doing away with the possibility that anyone can be prosecuted for violating them (more from Digby and Legal Fiction).

His great appeal to independents and some Democrats is going to be on things like this (as well as his so-called “authenticity.”) He’s pro-life, but also pro-stem cell research. He’s for staying in Iraq forever (“just like Korea — and nobody minds that!”) but he wants to close Gitmo and denounces torture. It’s exactly the type of thing the villagers rhapsodise about as “moderation” and “bipartisanship.”

Democrats will stick together in this election, I believe, no matter who wins because, despite the fulminations of the gasbags, they aren’t in total self-destruct mode having been out of power for quite some time. And they will likely win, in my opinion, no matter which candidate they finally settle upon. Many Republicans actually want to lose, for a variety of rational reasons, one of which is to preserve the “conservative” brand. The last thing they want is an unorthodox Republican to win. They’ll stay home if that’s what it takes.

But his campaign will shape the debate anyway, particularly when the press really focuses on what great “bipartisan” conciliator he is, what with his skillfully splitting the baby on all these contentious issues. The playing field will remain as slanted to the right as they can possibly make it, keeping many right wing ideas firmly in the mainstream, with slight deviations allowed on certain issues the plutocrats know they need to deal with (like global warming and Iraq) if they want to keep their snouts in the government trough.

The damage from all this is less the risk of losing the election than the damage that will be done to the liberal agenda along the way. They know how to win even when they lose. Democrats need to start making them just lose.

.

Informants R Us

by digby

Speaking of contractors:

“At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector,” the InfraGard website states. “InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories.”

In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that “350 of our nation’s Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard.”To join, each person must be sponsored by “an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization.” The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.

FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005…He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”

[…]

InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.

“The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”

[…]

In return for being in the know, InfraGard members cooperate with the FBI and Homeland Security. “InfraGard members have contributed to about 100 FBI cases,” Schneck says. “What InfraGard brings you is reach into the regional and local communities. We are a 22,000-member vetted body of subject-matter experts that reaches across seventeen matrixes. All the different stovepipes can connect with InfraGard.”

[…]

One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation — and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, “Partnership for Protection.” On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.

This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do.

“The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,” he says. “From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out. But that’s not all.

“Then they said when — not if — martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.

[…]

The FBI adamantly denies it, also. “That’s ridiculous,” says Catherine Milhoan, an FBI spokesperson. “If you want to quote a businessperson saying that, knock yourself out. If that’s what you want to print, fine.”

But one other InfraGard member corroborated the whistleblower’s account, and another would not deny it.

Christine Moerke is a business continuity consultant for Alliant Energy in Madison, Wisconsin. She says she’s an InfraGard member, and she confirms that she has attended InfraGard meetings that went into the details about what kind of civil patrol function — including engaging in lethal force — that InfraGard members may be called upon to perform.

“There have been discussions like that, that I’ve heard of and participated in,” she says.

Curt Haugen is CEO of S’Curo Group, a company that does “strategic planning, business continuity planning and disaster recovery, physical and IT security, policy development, internal control, personnel selection, and travel safety,” according to its website. Haugen tells me he is a former FBI agent and that he has been an InfraGard member for many years. He is a huge booster. “It’s the only true organization where there is the public-private partnership,” he says. “It’s all who knows who. You know a face, you trust a face. That’s what makes it work.”

He says InfraGard “absolutely” does emergency preparedness exercises. When I ask about discussions the FBI and Homeland Security have had with InfraGard members about their use of lethal force, he says: “That much I cannot comment on. But as a private citizen, you have the right to use force if you feel threatened.”

“We were assured that if we were forced to kill someone to protect our infrastructure, there would be no repercussions,” the whistleblower says. “It gave me goose bumps. It chilled me to the bone.”

Far be it for me to draw parallels between our developing police state and earlier authoritarian regimes, but there is some fairly recent evidence of where this sort of thing leads:

The Stasi infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of civilian informants, Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (IMs, Unofficial Collaborators), began growing in both German states; by the time East Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed an estimated 91,000 employees and 300,000 informants. About one of every 50 East Germans collaborated with the Stasi — one of the most extensive police infiltrations of a society in history. In 2007 an article in BBC stated that “Some calculations have concluded that in East Germany there was one informer to every seven citizens.” Additionally, Stasi agents infiltrated and undermined West Germany’s government and spy agencies.

I suppose that American ‘exceptionalism” requires that we believe this can never happen here — that these fine pillars of our communities would never use such powers for personal profit and our government would never use them to quash political dissent. We are much too special for that. Nothing like those awful commies.

Still, it seems to me that our constitution anticipated just this sort of thing, which is why it is so “picky” about civil liberties, demanding that the government go through certain hoops to preserve our freedom. If we all still sign on to it (a debatable proposition, I admit) it seems to me that we probably should not be creating secret societies that work in league with the government to spy on citizens. Call me a DFH, but I don’t trust these these people.

Via Avedon Carol

.

Outsourcing Immorality

by digby

In the midst of our obsession with primary politics this week, we’ve also been trying to follow the latest revelations in the torture debate. (I can still hardly believe I’m typing that.) I saw this detail earlier but failed to comment on it:

The CIA’s secret interrogation program has made extensive use of outside contractors, whose role likely included the waterboarding of terrorist suspects, according to testimony yesterday from the CIA director and two other people familiar with the program.

Many of the contractors involved aren’t large corporate entities but rather individuals who are often former agency or military officers. However, large corporations also are involved, current and former officials said. Their identities couldn’t be learned.

According to two current and former intelligence officials, the use of contracting at the CIA’s secret sites increased quickly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, in part because the CIA had little experience in detentions and interrogation. Using nongovernment employees also helped maintain a low profile, they said.

I’ll bet.

I suspect the use of “contractors” (who were probably recently privatized CIA employees) was done for some very specific reasons, namely that they mostly exist in legal no-man’s land, falling under no jurisdiction and answerable to no treaties, at least up to now. It’s very convenient.

The Military Commissions Act theoretically put military contractors under the jurisdiction of the Uniformed Code of Military justice, although it’s hard to see that any would ever be tried in a military court:

“It’s the single biggest legal development for the private military industry since its start. It holds the potential, and I emphasize ‘potential’ here, to finally bring some legal status and accountability to a business that has expanded well past the laws,” said Brookings Insitute Fellow Peter W. Singer, who’s both an acknowledged expert on private security forces and a sharp critic of them, back in January

Potential is right, but no one in the military is ready to seize the day and exercise their authority over contractors. One JAG officer I spoke to — who emphasized he was not speaking on behalf of the whole military or offering any explicit legal opinions about the issue — said trying contractors in military courts is “pretty radioactive.”

“I have asked some senior Army prosecutors about it and they laughed and shook their heads about what the prosecution would look like,” he said. “I mean nobody wants to be the first to touch it or try to use it, [it’s] not expressly a criticism of the extension of jurisdiction itself.”

Further confounding the problem is that while the UCMJ was amended in late 2006, the 2007 update of the Manual for Courts Martial offers no clarification on how the new language should be implemented. According to Army Lawyer, an official Army publication, “Subjecting contractor personnel to the UCMJ during all contingency operations appears to constitute a significant change rather than a clarification. No legislative history explains this change. Further, as there is no published guidance, it is unclear how this change will be implemented and precisely what the ramifications will be.” Translation: We’ll let somebody way above our pay grade decide what this means before we start bringing contractors to court — particularly since there are far more legal precedents for protecting civilians from military trials (notably Reid v. Covert), rather than vice versa

.

I don’t think CIA contractors are even subject to that, at least as far as I can tell. Indeed it’s highly likely that somebody at the DOJ made a legal finding that these contractors aren’t subject to any law at all. The testimony of all these people, McConnell, Hayden and Mukasey certainly suggest that the administration has made sure that nobody could ever be held legally liable for instituting and carrying out a torture regime.

As with the retroactive immunity for corporations who did the government’s dirty work to keep civilian courts from every probing the facts in these domestic spying cases, by outsourcing so much of its work to contractors in the war zone, they have attempted to shield military contractors’ operations from civilian jurisdiction, and have succeeded remarkably well so far:

Why and how those commitments to KBR’s employees apparently unraveled on April 9, 2004, is now the subject of a controversial and critically important suit. In May 2005 Ray Stannard and Edward Sanchez, along with seven other drivers who survived the massacre — and relatives of those who didn’t — sued KBR and its then-parent, Halliburton Co. (Kellogg Brown & Root was a subsidiary of Halliburton until last year, when it changed its name to KBR.) They’ve also sued the Cayman Islands-based subsidiary of Halliburton that hired them, as well as the recruiting companies that published the help-wanted advertisements. The plaintiffs claim that the drivers were fraudulently induced into believing they would not be sent into active combat zones, only to be sent out on a route where KBR knew the drivers were likely to be attacked.

“KBR had internal information that it was going to be attacked that day,” says Christina Fountain, a partner at Lopez McHugh in Newport Beach, Calif., who is representing the plaintiffs in the case, Fisher v. Halliburton/KBR. “This was a road that was in battle, in active combat, and Halliburton/KBR knew it,” adds co-counsel T. Scott Allen, a partner at Cruse, Scott, Henderson & Allen. He represents the plaintiffs from Houston, where the case was filed.

There is plenty of evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims. But at this point, thanks to the arguments of KBR lawyers from McKenna Long & Aldridge, the facts are irrelevant, at least as a legal matter. In September 2006, shortly after KBR hired McKenna to take over the case from longtime KBR counsel Jones Day, the federal district court in Houston dismissed the case, declaring it nonjusticiable. McKenna partners David Kasanow and Raymond Biagini convinced the court that the case raises a political question beyond the competence of the federal judiciary.

The plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But if the district court’s decision stands, it will mean that the actions of virtually any military contractor working for the federal government could be deemed beyond the authority of the courts — and immune from American law.

All this outsourcing and contracting was done for many reasons, some of it no doubt to sneak around regulations and budgetary accountability. But legal immunity may have been the main reason. We may find that CIA contractors who torture are not only considered immune under the Mukasey” I was only following orders” legal interpretation, but that they don’t fall under any legal jurisdiction at all.

Considering that all this was done by people who had previously brought us secret wars in Cambodia and sold arms to our alleged enemies to fund illegal wars from a shadow government run out of the white house, it really shouldn’t be surprising that they did what they did. And unless there is a reckoning, it would be criminally stupid if we are surprised the next time they get their hands on the white house and do it all again. It’s what they do.

Sadly, very few people seem to think it’s a problem.

Update: via Avedon, here’s Charles Pierce on the subject.

.

Here We Go Again

by digby

I have taken a fair amount of grief for criticizing the campaign coverage on MSNBC over the past few months, most recently for what I saw as pretty obviously biased coverage on Super Tuesday. Up until recently the “illness” was mostly confined to Matthews, Carlson and Scarborough, particularly the first. But after Matthews was taken to the woodshed for his sexism in the period before New Hampshire and forced to apologize (for only one of the many, many disgustingly sexist comments he’s made over the years) there was a noticeable shift among the whole crew over there. It was clear that they believed Matthews was being criticized for political purposes and circled the wagons when, in fact, it was a legitimate complaint in its own right, coming from far more average viewers out here in the hinterland than insiders or political operatives.

Here was the reaction from one of Matthews’ colleagues:

SHUSTER: Just one comment about Chris Matthews. I’ve worked with him for five and a half years. I’ve been alongside him, on camera, off, good times and bad. Nobody is more gracious and has a bigger heart, and has contributed more in a positive way to our political discourse than Chris Matthews.

SCARBOROUGH: Now, let me say, let me say —

SHUSTER: And to see him have to go through this is absolutely infuriating, to see the way these groups used him for pure political gain is absolutely infuriating.

Yesterday, filling in for Tucker, David Shuster made a comment about Hillary “pimping out” Chelsea.

SHUSTER: There’s just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea’s out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom, and she’s apparently also calling these super delegates.

PRESS: Hey, she’s working for her mom. What’s unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it’s great, I think she’s grown up in a political family—

PRESS: —she’s got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she’d make a great president [crosstalk]

SHUSTER: But doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way? [laughter]

I take him at his word that he didn’t mean it in any literal sense. But what did he mean? Why on earth would anyone think it was “unseemly” for the 28 year old daughter of a presidential candidate to be “calling celebrities and superdelegates” on behalf of the campaign? What’s wrong with that?

There are endless examples of grown kids working on their parents’ campaigns in much more official capacities than that:

Mary Cheney:

She was one of her father’s top campaign aides and closest confidantes. In July 2003 she became the director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney 2004 Presidential re-election campaign.

Liz Cheney:

In 2002 she was appointed to the newly created position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs…She left that post in 2003 to serve in her father’s re-election campaign.

Cate Edwards:

She actively campaigned with her father on his unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003 and 2004.

She started attending Harvard Law School in the fall of 2006.

On September 30, 2007, during a campaign stop with actor James Denton, Edwards stated that she sides with her mother in support of gay marriage. She is quoted as saying: “I’m on my mom’s side with this, not my dad’s. It’s the word ‘marriage’ that he is hung up on.”

What about the five strapping Romney boys who traveled all over Iowa in a bus serving their country? Here’s an article about 23 year old Meghan McCain stumping for her Dad.

It is simply bizarre to call it “unseemly” when every candidate’s family helps him or her out on the trail. Why in the world should Chelsea Clinton be singled out?

Shuster tepidly apologized this morning, but judging from the past, it will only serve to inflame the MSNBC crew even more and we’ll soon be seeing even worse coverage of the campaign.

I do think it behooves all of us to be skeptical of news organizations that behave like adolescents, no matter where your political allegiances lie. As all of us remember I’m sure, teen-age hormones and mood swings are very unpredictable. That boy may love you today, but loyalty isn’t his strong suit. Tomorrow, he will kiss and tell, turn his back and take up with another without a second thought. News organizations that behave this way are not good for our democracy. This isn’t the homecoming game — it’s an election.

Update: There’s something in the coffee over there:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well you know a lot of Republican talk show people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, I think authors, successful authors, I must say, like Ann Coulter, they wouldn’t be so unhappy to have Hillary Clinton to beat up for four or eight years, especially four years. And Mr. DeLay would probably love to have Hillary to beat up for two years and then win back the house in ’10. I mean I could see the strategy — sometimes in bad weather you let the other team have the ball. You elect to kick rather than receive. Let them have the ball in the Ice Bowl. Let them try to move it past the second or third yard while you come down hard on them. The people like Bill Kristol out there, the neo-conservatives. Imagine Hillary Clinton as president for a couple of months with about a one-point advantage coming into office? They will crash around her, hitting her with everything they’ve got.

MATTHEWS: Rush Limbaugh will be in heaven. Sean Hannity will be in heaven. Their ratings’ll go through the roof. Roger Ailes, he’ll be on Neptune he’ll be so happy! Because all they’ll do every day is say how do we beat up Hillary Clinton today? Unless occasionally she starts a war, and then they’ll give her a parade. They’ll give her a parade every day she starts a war. But if she’s not starting a war, they’ll kill her.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I want to know how Chris really feels about this.

MATTHEWS: Come on, Mika, that’s the weakest line. Come on, Mika, that is so weak and so below you, how I really feel. That is so yesterday.

BRZEZINSKI: It’s so yesterday?!

MATTHEWS: I mean how I really feel. You know how you tell how I really feel, Mika? Listen. [protracted silence]. But you and I agree on so many things sub rosa. I don’t know why we’re arguing.

BRZEZINSKI: We’re not arguing; go ahead Willie.

MATTHEWS: Some things, because in the brilliant light of day, I know we see things [similarly?]. But you’re just trying to encourage me, aren’t you? I know what you’re doing.

BRZEZINSKI: I’m goading you.

.

Here’s the thing. Aside from his freakish defensiveness, Matthews is right about the conservatives. They are falling back to regroup. But why does he point the whole thing at Clinton? Does he honestly think they won’t do that to any Democratic president? Why wouldn’t they?

Update II: Shuster has been suspended. At first, I wondered why that would be when Matthews has made thousands of comments that are even more egregious, as has Tucker Carlson. I think this may give a hint:

On Thursday, when Clinton spokesman Phillippe Reines contacted Shuster and told him the comment was offensive, the reporter e-mailed back that he was referring to the fact that Chelsea is making calls to convention superdelegates but refusing to talk to the press. Shuster did make that point on the air — after his pimped out comment, which was not delivered as a joke.

Reines was incredulous at the lack of an apology, but Shuster stood his ground.

I’m guessing it took a lot of persuading to get Shuster to understand that his comment was out of bounds. Judging from Shuster’s earlier comment, I think they have convinced themselves over at MSNBC that this is all a Clintonian plot and he felt his journalistic ethics were being challenged.

My suspicion is that the bigger questions about all this have been lost on the MSNBC crew as they circle their wagons and get more and more defensive. They’ve sublimated their own discomfort(shame?)with this discussion by making it into a political/journalistic turf battle, when in fact, it’s something much more psychological/sociological.

Matthews is somewhat deranged on this subject, because he sees the entire political system through some sort of gender prism, so he’s a special case, but the other offenders could be caught up in this out of a sort of collegian loyalty which has morphed into outright hostility toward people who are “making” them feel uncomfortable with their own behavior. It snowballs to the point where nobody knows what’s true anymore.

They need to do some serious thinking over there about this problem.

Update II: Olbermann offered a straightforward apology on MSNBC’s behalf tonight. Good for him.

.

Foundling

by digby

Poor little guy:

At first, rescuers thought it was a doll. Then it moved. In a grassy pasture strewn with toys, splintered lumber and bricks tossed by the tornado’s widespread wrath, 11-month old Kyson Stowell was lying face down in the mud, 150 yards from where his home once stood.

“It looked like a baby doll,” said David Harmon, a firefighter who had already combed the field once looking for survivors. Then he checked for a pulse. “He was laying there motionless … and he took a breath of air and started crying.”

The field had already been combed once for survivors, and finding anyone alive seemed improbable. Hours after the storm, there was devastation everywhere: The body of the boy’s mother was found in the same field, houses were wiped to concrete slabs and a brick post office was blown to bits. But except for a few scrapes, Kyson was fine.

American Red Cross
Mid-South Chapter
1400 Central Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
901-726-1690

And:
United Way of the Mid-South phone in a donation at (901) 433-4300.

Via Monkeyfister

.

Wingnut Triangulation

by digby

Somehow I don’t think it actually hurts John McCain’s chances of winning to have Chris Matthews’ BFF Tom Delay on Hardball saying that McCain is too liberal because it’s “arrogant to think man can affect the climate,” and because he hasn’t endorsed a right to “drive through Philly with a bazooka hanging out of the window of their Hummer.” Not that he’ll win anyway…

Matthews: Will you vote for John McCain if it keeps the Clintons out of the White House?

DeLay: I don’t have to decide that right now.

Do you get the feeling that the conservatives are gaming this thing? I knew that you would.

They know they are going to lose. They will blame the loss on the fact that McCain wasn’t a real conservative (just like Bush.) They know when to fall back and regroup. They’re already playing for the next election.

Everybody sing: Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

.

Not Having It

by digby

From the comment threads:

Digby: “I’m not talking about legitimate, passionate political discussion. This is about personal attacks and drive-by character assassination.”

digby,

i’ve loved your writing over the years, read you daily since 03, but your campaign for decorum needs to stop (btw, i am not engaging in “drive-by character assassination”). if someone alerts you to an offensive comment, you should use your discretion and delete if you feel it to be in bad taste. but to scour your own comment threads, LOOKING for something that YOU find offensive — well, i hate to say this, but it reminds me of broder, brooks, et. all.
your readers can handle themselves, and if they feel the urge to engage in an invective-laden argument over whose corporate militarist candidate will do a better job tinkering with this plane as it crashes, well who are you to stop them?
yes, it’s your blog (no freedom of speech issues). but these are YOUR readers, like it or not. they are people with opinions, just as you are a person with an opinion.
remember, “smelling salts” is a phrase that you coined. don’t go reaching for them anymore. it’s getting tiresome.

sleepy | 02.07.08 – 8:26 pm | #

Yeah, give the cunt some smelling salts and tell her to make you a sandwich.
Beatthebitch | 02.07.08 – 9:09 pm | #
____________________________________________________________________________

Since comments are back.

This is Atrios:
Commenters provide a check on me when I write something stupid, and of course provide me with lots of material which I liberally borrow and steal. While it’s an incredibly time consuming part of what I do, it’s also the most rewarding. If not for comments I would’ve gotten bored with this blogging stuff a long time ago. Not really sure why bloggers without comments bother.” 2/07/2008

This is Digby:
Chill Pill
The comment threads have become a problem….we’re going to take a little break.1/21/2008

uppity kitty | 02.07.08 – 6:13 pm | #

Right on uppity kitty. Digby is a whining douche who runs and hides when anybody says something she doesn’t like. That’s why people still like Atrios and think she should shut the fuck up.

She thinks she can ban me too. Nice try you stupid cunt
Beatthebitch | 02.07.08 – 6:39 pm |

Just so everyone understands, this is why I closed comments earlier and it’s why I have had to spend the better part of the day deleting comments like the two responses above. 24 of them at last count on several different threads and I’m sure I missed some.

I’m not going to allow people to call me a cunt on my own blog. It’s just not acceptable. I’m sorry it’s so tiresome to hear me ask people not to feed these trolls or if you think it’s obsessive for me to ban people who call me a douche twenty times a day, but that’s tough.

Save the sanctimonious lectures, everybody. I don’t care if you tear each other apart politically in the comments but I’m not going to be anyone’s personal urinal. You talk that way around here from now on and you’re out. I’m done.

.