Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

IMF Bailout 101

by digby

Here’s a useful explanation from Ohio Senate candidate Jennifer Brunner about why the House should reject the administration’s request for a bailout for the IMF in the emergency supplemental.

COLUMBUS — Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner today called on the U.S. Senate to reject the Obama Administration’s request for $108 billion in bailout funds for the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

“Many of the European banks made a series of risky and speculative loans in central and eastern Europe that are likely to go into default,” Brunner said. “We are looking conservatively at more than a trillion dollars in bad loans, loans that the United States had no part in, and we simply cannot afford to step in now and bail them out through the IMF. “ We have too many families and our own institutions struggling here at home who need our help first.”

Some have argued that the money is necessary to help provide a global stimulus and to help people in poverty in countries with poorer and less sophisticated economies. But the actual amount of money that will go to assist these countries is indirect and minute. Most of the money would aid struggling European banks that are facing potential losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That money would be sent via the IMF, which, unlike TARP funds, would not be subject to any semblance of oversight of or accountability to the U.S. Congress.

“American taxpayers are weary of business bailouts, especially ones that do not help create American jobs,” Brunner added. “And as we speak, some American banks are chafing at the regulations placed on them by the latest in bailout funding and want to repay it quickly to have a say in their own operation and to attract the best talent to their operations. Bailing out European banks through the IMF, without even the minimal regulations placed on American banks, only increases the potential for a wider imbalance in trade, giving away American wealth and self-sufficiency, and jeopardizing not only our economy but our traditional sense of American self-determination. Before aiding foreign banks, Congress must demand a thorough auditing of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accounting Office. We must protect our American tax dollars and ultimately the wealth of our country for now and for future generations. No bailouts without transparency and accountability,” stated Brunner.

The fiscal scolds are multiplying like rabbits in Washington this spring with even the president giving sonorous lectures about budgetary restraint and sacrifice. Fine. But if that’s the case then these bailouts are done. They can’t have it both ways and give away billions upon billions to wealthy gamblers all over the planet and then come and lecture average Americans about how they have to pull in their belts and learn to live within their means. Sorry, it just doesn’t scan.

.

Miranda On The Battlefield

by digby

While most of the news media were focusing on the Holocaust Museum Shooting yesterday, this is what consumed the round table on Bret Baier’s Fox news broadcast. Steven Hayes (of “Cheney was right about the Iraq Al Qaeda connection” fame) is all worked up about this report that the US is allegedly giving Miranda warnings to foreign fighters in Afghanistan:

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet. Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs. If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan. Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.” That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.

The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions. Under the “global justice” initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

I’ll wait for someone other than a lone right wing congressional nutball to confirm that they actually are giving Miranda warnings to foreign fighters. But the fact that the FBI is back in the mix is good news. The covert actions of the CIA, as usual, have been cloddishly ineffective and counterproductive. They don’t know zilch about interrogations and investigations. The FBI is far better suited to this task, since that’s what they are trained to do. Let the spies be spies, the analysts be analysts, the special forces be soldiers and the cops be the interrogators. Everyone has their job.

It is somewhat amusing, however, that the right wing is now the sworn enemy of the FBI, which they consider to be a bunch of panty-waisted wimps beholden to silly rules like the Fourth Amendment. These people just won’t rest until we have a full-blown Stasi style secret police.

Until it comes after them, of course, at which point they’ll start squealing like little schoolboys about freedom and jackboots and political persecution. It’s just how they are.

Update: Jake Tapper reports:

The Obama administration announced this week that some detainees captured and held abroad have been read Miranda rights to preserve evidence for a potential prosecution.

Administration officials say the Bush administration did this as well in some instances relating to certain criminal cases.

The question of detainees being Mirandized was raised by theWeekly Standard’s Steven Hayes who wrotethat “the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.”

The Obama administration took issue with the notion that this was a blanket policy change, one ordered by the Justice Department.

“There has been no policy change and no blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas,” Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said. “While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees.”

I doubt very seriously that this explanation will get in the way of the impending hissy fit. Their eyes were already rolling back in their heads and they were all clutching their white hankies like their lives depended on it. You could feel the rising hysteria coming through the TV screen.

.

Whip It Good

by digby

Most of you are probably aware of Jane Hamsher’s whip operation to get the House to vote down the war supplemental, but if not, go over to FDL and check it out. She’s trying to keep progressives who have previously voted against funding for Iraq to stay with the program now that it’s a Democrat in the White House who is asking for the money. That’s not easy, but she’s making headway:

I just want to take a minute to thank everyone who is taking time out of their day to make calls and stand by their commitment to end the war. When I look over the lists and read about the thousands of calls people are making to the offices of members of congress, and I see people like Toby who called 25 offices in one day, it makes it all worthwhile.

We really appreciate the efforts of everyone who has called, and who continue to call. It’s a highly fluid situation, and Rahm Emanuel is furiously horse trading for votes. Sources on the Hill say that they’ve never seen this kind of full-court press from the White House. Members are being bribed, bullied and cajoled into abandoning their commitment to vote against any war funding that doesn’t include a time table to bring the troops home.

I’ve updated the Whip Tool to include the latest information we have on the vote count. Please keep the calls coming.

Now, this is obviously about more than the war funding. If the administration hadn’t put the IMF request in the war supplemental, Rahm wouldn’t be having this problem. They want that money. Here’s Mark Weisbrot of CEPR:

[A]s any Member of Congress or staff can tell you, the Administration attached the IMF money to the war supplemental because the chances of getting the House to vote for it on a straight up-or-down vote were slim to none. By attaching the IMF money, which has nothing to do with war spending, to this bill, the Administration was putting Members of Congress who want to vote against the IMF money in a position where they could be accused of “voting against money for the troops.” It should be noted that there is no urgency for this money; the IMF has hundreds of billions of dollars available for any emergencies that might arise during the time it would take to approve this funding through a normal legislative process.

Read on for the full rundown of why this bail-out for European banks by the American taxpayer is such a bad idea that they had to attach it to a “support the troops” emergency supplemental in order to get it passed. Jane is working to get progressives to stick to their guns on the war, which will make it much harder for the administration to pass their IMF bailout. I frankly didn’t think there was much chance of getting these folks to do that but she’s having surprising success. It’s still a long shot, but not as long as it was a few days ago.
If you want to join in this effort, go over to FDL and use their handy whip tool. It’s easy. Give Rahm some left-sided heartburn.

.

One More Great Reason To Avoid Coca-Cola

by tristero

When I was a kid, my sister and I performed a gruesome scientific experiment. We dropped two of our baby teeth into a glass of Coke. After a week or thereabouts (I’m guessing here, it was a long time ago), they started to rot. I never drank Coke, or any sugared soda, again.

If that isn’t enough, here’s another reason to avoid Coke’s crummy products. Coke is “partners officially” with Ken Ham’s insane Creation “Museum”. That’s right: Coke sponsors creationists.

But what should you substitute when you’re feeling thirsty? My advice: try plain water. It works. Oh, and make it tap water. In the States, at least, it’s usually pretty good.

h/t Pharyngula.

UPDATE: You’d think I’d know this already: Never, ever believe anything a christianist says.

Reader MS points to this clarification in the comments to PZ’s original post:

This is hysterical– This means they signed a contract with Coke saying they will only sell Coke products, so Coke gives them a discount.
Thats it.
Contract that says only us–>discount.
Coke isnt ‘supporting’ the Creation museum. Theyre just taking TARD money, not really ‘giving’ Ham anything they dont offer everyone else. But Ham is so desperate for ‘support’ hes even looking to carbonated sugar water for an argument from authority.
ROFL!

Even so, please drink water instead.

Despair

by digby

Many gasbags on TV seem to have concluded that the root cause of the Holocaust Museum shooting is “economic despair.” Since the shooter was a product of right, the obvious way to solve the problem is to cut taxes so that these despairing white guys don’t have to shoot black people in order to stop the jewish conspiracy from stealing all their money.

Oh, and we should have made sure that all the tourists were well armed before they went into the museum.

.

Frightening

by digby

Shepard Smith tells it like it is about Fox Viewers:

It would be really nice if the designated “liberals” on Fox (which Shep is not) would be this honest. Instead you get Juan Williams genuflecting before the Falafel King like he’s a 16th century papal supplicant. It’s humiliating.

Good for Shepard Smith. And good for Fox for letting Shep be Shep.

Update: Little Green Footballs recognizes the obvious as well:

With the Tiller shooting and now this — the DHS report that caused such an uproar has been vindicated.

The report was a heads-up to law enforcement, warning of a risk of increased attacks from right wing extremists, and with two attacks in two weeks (in addition to the cop killer in Pittsburgh, the white nationalist with components for a dirty bomb, the plot by skinheads to assassinate Obama, and more) it looks like the heads-up was well warranted.

If anyone’s interested in the relationship between these violent extremists and the mainstream, David Niewert’s book is a good place to start:

And, by the way, I’m sure David is available for interviews, if anyone on TV or radio would like an expert to weigh in on this current spate of violence. Nobody can connect the dots on this subject like he can.

.

Your Leaders

by digby

Here’s a voice of the people for you:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Wednesday that he is “frankly not terribly interested” in what the major health care reform coalition thinks and is pushing ahead with a proposal the group rejects.

“I am unaware that HCAN has any votes on the floor of the United States Senate,” said Conrad when told that the coalition Health Care for America Now opposed his plan to create regional health care co-ops instead of allowing consumers to have access to a public plan option.

“They have no votes on the floor of the United States Senate. And I am dealing with votes in the finance committee and the floor of the United States Senate. I am frankly not terribly interested in what these myriad groups all think. I am interested in what people who vote think,” he said, flailing his arms and knocking a Politico reporter’s recorder to the marble floor.

“I don’t even respond to that kind of thing. I think it is just chatter. What matters is results, legislative results at the end of the day,” he said.

But aren’t the “myriad groups” he’s referring to the base of the Democratic Party? Shouldn’t he give some weight to their position?

Conrad wasn’t having it. “What is it that they want to get? Are they interested in the name of something or are they interested in getting a result that delivers on what is behind the name? I am interested in actually achieving a result. Not a label, but an alternative to the delivery model of for-profit insurance companies,” he said. “The great thing about democracy is we get to debate. It’s healthy. It’s good to have a debate.”

He’s obviously interested in what Republican voters think. They are the control group. And never let it be said that your Democratic leaders are elites who would prefer to listen to health industry lobbyists (who you can bet are pounding down the doors and crowding the hallways) than their own constituents. They figure we’ll take whatever scraps they feed us and be thankful for them.

You know what is so amazing about that? Apparently, they think that eight years is ancient history? After all, it was only that long ago that a large enough chunk of the left found a voice in Ralph Nader that it effectively gave an election to the Republicans. That shit does happen.

They can play games with health care and pretend that the details don’t matter and that nobody will figure out that they’re selling out the people on behalf of their owners once again and health care reform turns into yet another bail out for big business. But you can bet that the right will be right there “explaining” why things didn’t work out. (And the left will probably be demobilized if not actively looking elsewhere for leadership.)

Let’s be clear here. Conrad’s brilliant idea for “health care co-ops” is meaningless. There are already a bunch of non-profits in the marketplace and it’s done absolutely nothing to control costs. The only thing that will (short of single payer which was written out of the debate by the presidential candidates) is for millions of people to sign up for a public plan that has the clout to influence pricing and efficiency. Anything short of that is a gift to the insurance companies who are undoubtedly ecstatic that Conrad has put this “compromise” on the table.

The only people who are engaged in the details of the health care debate on the merits are liberal interest groups and the activists. The great stressed out middle is too confused to believe anything will ever change and the right and the Medical Industrial Complex (for various reasons) are determined to defeat reform by any means possible. Why do the Democrats think it’s a good idea to dismiss and deride their only allies in a situation like this? Is it too cynical to entertain the thought that they are actively courting failure?

.

Losing by Winning

by digby

I’ve been as much of a defender of Sotomayor’s nomination as anyone, particularly in light of the vicious attacks right out of the box from Boss Limbaugh and the boyz. But as I watch this unfold, I realize that we all may have been played a little bit by the right wing into reacting in a way that benefits them as much as ourselves. Or, perhaps we simply failed once again to see how our defenses were actually advancing conservative values.

I first got an inkling of this when I saw liberals coming out of the woodwork to defend Sotomayor by pointing out that she had actually ruled against discrimination claims 86 out of 96 times. I understand that reaction, but it’s actually counterproductive to the larger argument about discrimination. It validates the assumption that discrimination claims are mostly bogus and that even “wise Latina” liberals like Sonya Sotomayor agree. Now, maybe that’s true in terms of the cases she heard and ruled on, but it’s not useful for liberals to be in a position of saying that the mark of a good judge is one who rules against discrimination claims.

And now we have this story in the NY Times which will probably do her a world of good. Unfortunately:

Imprisoned at the age of 16 for the killing of a high school classmate, Mr. Deskovic, now 35, filed a habeas corpus petition in 1997 in Federal District Court contesting his conviction. The court denied the request because the paperwork had arrived four days late. Mr. Deskovic and one of his lawyers — who he said had been misinformed about the deadline for filing — appealed the decision to the federal appellate court on which Ms. Sotomayor sat.

Ms. Sotomayor, along with the other judge on the panel, ruled that the lawyer’s mistake did not “rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance” that would compel them to forgive the delay. There was no need to look at the evidence that Mr. Deskovic insisted would affirm his innocence, they said.

Mr. Deskovic spent six more years behind bars, until DNA found in the victim not only cleared him, but connected another man to the crime.

Habeas corpus petitions are rarely granted, and Mr. Deskovic knew that all along. Federal judges routinely deny them, including for purely procedural reasons. But he listened as President Obama, in seeking a new Supreme Court justice, talked about how he wanted a judge with not only great intellect, but also great empathy, a judge who knew how the real world worked and who could apply some common sense.

And so Mr. Deskovic is angry. All over again.

“When we filed the appeal, I thought for sure that she and the other judge were going to see the facts of the case, that this wasn’t an error of my doing and that upholding a ruling like that would be a miscarriage of justice,” Mr. Deskovic said.

I have no idea about the merits of the case or the underlying details. It’s entirely possible that Sotomayor was just following the law and did the right thing. But I am uncomfortable that this case, like the discrimination statistics, will undoubtedly be used to defend her from charges of being too liberal and will help her get confirmed. This is not an argument I want to make.

Someday we’re going to have to make the argument that justice is as important as being tough and unyielding. The balance is way out of whack in our culture.

.

Just Don’t Call It Terrorism

by digby

You’ve undoubtedly heard by now that a white supremacist tried to shoot up the Holocaust Museum today.

It’s pretty clear that the right wing has lost whatever restraint it had and that the ongoing paroxysms of violent, extreme rhetoric are having their effect. The crocodile tears of the anti-abortion forces after the Tiller assassination notwithstanding, it’s also pretty clear that they know this violence is effective. If you want to paralyze a society and force people to capitulate out of fear of random violence, nothing beats terrorism.

And once the right gets everybody looking over their shoulders, they’ll misdirect the citizenry and run to the rescue with calls for “law and order.” (Recall that the violence of the 60s didn’t originate with the left — it originated with racist cops unleashing hell on non-violent protesters.) It’s working great with the deficit.

.

No Brainer

by digby

I’ve been musing for some time about the logic of using torture on terrorist suspects but not criminal suspects and wondering when that line was going to break down. (In my view, the indiscriminate, reflexive use of tasering is the first sign that it already is…)

Apparently, in the UK it’s happened:

Six Scotland Yard officers could face assault charges after being accused of inflicting torture by ‘waterboarding’.

Four suspects are said to have been subjected to simulated drowning during searches of two properties for drugs.

These suspects were allegedly selling pot, by the way.

Waterboarding is illegal in the UK, so the officers will be dealt with if these charges are true. And there have been similar cases in the US in the past. But one has to wonder if it’s going to become more common — after all, half the country thinks it’s sometimes necessary and many of the authorities seem to think it works.

It’s hard to put these genies back in the bottle.