The Soleimani Strike [Trump Makes Iran Situation Worse]

The words of this song continue to be quite relevant, especially after a top Iranian leader was killed (will avoided weighted terms) by U.S. military forces.  Yes, though not alone, one person ultimately decides and our current law likely makes how Soleimani was killed somehow "legal." As noted by the author there, this doesn't mean the strike was a good idea or that even that the current law is either.  One some level, at least, the reach of the two authorizations of military force is a tad insane on a constitutional level.  But, there is a range of reactions to make here so it's okay to cry foul too.

[There are reports that the reasoning offered for the attack are dubious and will affect the legal argument.  The details are of some importance both politically and as a matter of diplomatic policy, but dubious if the case is so bad that they would really have trouble in a legal sense. Realistically, there is no actual check there other than impeachment. Which is still pending.  It might help support of additional limits of the sort cited below.  Maybe.  Trump is now threatening attacks on Iranian cultural sites in a way that would violate international law.  But, what is going to happen?  Arrest at the Hague? To be continued.]

"One person" deciding -- in practice it's a bit more complicated -- to the degree involved, including using laws from the 9/11 era violates good constitutional policy.  Including due process matters in particulars.  We had a few cases, e.g., involving "targeted killings" that involved U.S. citizens.  I was loathe -- as some blithely did -- to just call these illegal "assassinations."  If an Al Qaeda member who is a U.S. citizen is killed by a drone, it very well might have been in 2004 legal to do so.  We killed lots of American citizens in the 1860s.  But, if Shelby v. Holder can hold the Voting Rights Act criteria for preclearance rules out of date, we might find something set up to deal with 2001/2 events too.

I thought this -- down to the "to his credit" comment -- a good analysis of the whole decision here though totally admit my ignorance on this sort of thing (making me on this mainstream).  Likewise, actually taking the people in this Administration at face value is a fool's game.  We've been down this road before, often with some of the same conservative leaning voices (not always of the same political party).  I was loathe to accept that invading Iraq in 2002/3 was a good idea, thinking that should be made as a last resort. The people in power didn't help my trust in judgment calls much more.  The Libya bombing under Obama, e.g., has been subject to serious criticism.  I'm open to that sort of thing, but both the parties involved and the specific details were different.  Yes, here, decision-makers can be key.

As noted here (including a link to the Washington Post, which I will cite below), the decision-making of Trump and to be clear "et. al" in various respects, should basically never be trusted.  Noting the grain of salt we should add to any analysis of insider decision-making, especially as events basically continue to occur, things like “Benghazi has loomed large on his mind" or how "tremendously bold" (not necessarily a good thing) it made him look stands out.  Ditto, his concern for media optics of not using force against Iran in the past.  For Republicans, "Benghazi" involves a lot of b.s. and Obama/Clinton bashing.  Motivated by that?  Ugh.

While the attack evoked the frequent rocket fire that rained down on U.S. troops in Baghdad and other locations in the years following the 2003 invasion, such incidents have been uncommon in recent years. The United States has found itself in the odd position of fighting on the same side as Iranian-backed militias against the Islamic State. But the rocket attacks resumed in recent months as the Trump administration continued its “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions against Iran, growing in intensity until the Kirkuk attack.

The analysis provides the complexity involved here regarding what is occurring in the region ("a mess" as much as "very complicated" both fit) and the dead person's role in it.  There is a reason why Bush and Obama chose not to kill this guy.  Why Obama and others wanted to lower the temperature.  But, Trump wants to be anti-Obama; who wants lower temperatures?  Global warming for all!   Killing a top military leader, close to the leader of Iran apparently, is dangerous stuff.  If one of ours were killed, we would feel a need to retaliate.  The immediate reaction from some parts (talk of domestic terrorism etc.) is a tad scary.

[There was a constant tendency of those -- including people like Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro [who ended his campaign; reports are Booker actually had good funding numbers though doesn't seem to translate into poll numbers] -- against the killing to lead with him being a horrible person.  This will lead many readers to stop reading and be glad he's dead.  If you oppose this attack as dangerous, lead with that. Don't hedge using the other side's own argument.  Someone noted if the people didn't start that way, they would be deemed "soft" on terror or something.  But, they would anyway if they ultimately speak out against the killing.  At least, don't lead with him being horrible.]

An incompetent asshole who was impeached for only part of his crimes worsened the situation and then had the power to very well possibly make things worse.  A basic principle when talking about constitutional issues here is the importance of the abilities and character of those in power. Because especially in this context one person is going to have a lot of power, in fact, it made some degree of sense (especially in non-modern times) to give one person such power.  Ultimately, a committee might in effect have some role in these things, but one person makes the final call.  Trump has no fucking business being the one to do that. I continue to be very pissed that this is not basically seen as obvious by more people. Including media hedging.

There are some means in place to restrain executive action here, including updating the AUMF and putting limits on actions in Iran. There should be a bipartisan group in place with the Rand Paul types out there to do that. But, as noted in the legal analysis above, one was recently filibustered in the Senate even though the House and a bare majority of the Senate supported it.  Senator Kaine (VP on Earth 2) is pushing for a war powers resolution on Iran.  One thing that can be added is some clear statement on the need to notify top people in Congress (not done here) before killing top Iranian leaders.  Of course, that might cause a veto or involve language that the executive department will find ("find") some loopholes in.

There is a barn door problem there but we need to start somewhere. If Republicans cannot understand a need to have limits here with Trump in power ... well, that's an old line.  The Iowa caucuses occur in a month. Unlike earlier, we do have a reason to start thinking seriously about the 2020 elections.  It is a basic necessity here to have the right result. 

Rumsfeld On "Late Show with Stephen Colbert"

[This is a form of a comment first provided here, see also, Shag's thoughts. As to the original subject matter covered there, the Ted Cruz as natural born citizen issue is again debate here, I again not finding Mark Field -- who on the whole is a great progressive type with a deep knowledge of history and law -- convincing. A tell is him being a guest host for a clear weak link on that blog.]

Stephen Colbert, I think, did a good job -- he has repeatedly have had serious guests on and used a combination of his niceness, sense of humor and serious questioning to make it worthwhile television. This includes scientists, politicians, someone from Black Lives Matters and others.  Don't know if this will be as popular as his competition, but hopefully enough will watch to allow him to continue.  Seems there should be niche for it.

In the end, the sit-down with Rumsfeld was yet another in-depth interview that he could never have pulled off as his old Colbert Report character. It took straightforward, genuine persistence, but the real Stephen Colbert got the job done.

Given the nature of his audience, who booed Ted Cruz when he was on, I wonder if they were put on notice beforehand to be nice. The fact Rumsfeld came on to promote an app -- if one that is being used to support military vets (no comment there), a cause Stephen Colbert has supported in the past -- just left me speechless on some level.  Anyway, some don't want Colbert to have guys like him or Trump on, to give them legitimacy, but asked serious questions and reached an audience that NPR or Charlie Rose etc. would not get.  A highlight is Rumsfeld's comment: “If it were a fact, it wouldn’t be called intelligence,” and Colbert clearly making an effort to be fair probably helped.

It seemed to cut into his next guest's time, some basketball star with his own brand of eyewear, but that is okay.  Also, I think Colbert's pre-interview segment was great last night too on Cruz etc. And, the inability of Carlson Palmer to do what QBs have to do -- throw balls to the right team. Well, I needed a laugh at least and he helped get it, mixed with some serious stuff by a nice, funny talented host. Good luck, SC.

"Scenes from Daily Life in the de Facto Capital of ISIS" (click for story)

Ashleigh Banfield

Her controversial 2003 speech is appropriate reading/listening with today's Iraq announcement. How about Afghanistan?

Book Review Okay, But Standard Line Not

We do have two recent examples of presidents who have stood up against majority opinion: George W. Bush with his surge in Iraq and Barack Obama with his health care plan.

What part was the public against? More health care for kids? Less pre-existing conditions? Less costs? What? W/o context, we have b.s.

Yay for America!

Gary Farber over at OW provides his usual in depth type coverage on Wikileaks. The assumption, often taken for granted without much excitement, is that Republicans will seize control of the House. This means benefiting the primary enablers of f-ups in war, economy, etc.

The "nobody-could-have-known" excuse and Iraq

What GG said. Such tired b.s. FU.

Odds and Ends

Obama gave a speech on how the combat stage is over in Iraq. Digging out of a stupid hole is important but thankless. Pass. Another sad Mets game. Pass. S3 of FNL, including "the sex talk" (good analysis), continues to be good. Tyra, Tami and Matt are my favs.

Beginning of the End?

And Also: I saw the second half of Season 2 of Friday Nights Lights on DVD. It was okay, characters great, but skipped over some tedious plot material. S1 and the second half of S4 were much better.

I did not see the extended coverage of "a key milestone in the withdrawal of American forces more than seven years after the US-led invasion that ousted dictator Saddam Hussein," Keith hosted last night on the "last US combat brigade" leaving Iraq. Partially it is a matter of:

On September 1, the US mission in Iraq will be re-christened "Operation New Dawn", from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- the name given to American operations since the invasion. To fill the gap left by departing troops, the US State Department is to more than double the number of security contractors it employs in Iraq to around 7,000, the New York Times reported.

I don't see a segment among the many (watching a bit now -- it's interesting) is labeled as addressing this matter. We have been taught by various segments on Rachel Maddow to distrust security contractors, but now more will go there. Will some be related to Xe or whatever they call themselves now? Keith at one point made a telling comment of the "symbolic" nature of this final removal. As another blog noted:

Yet, lost beneath the headlines and fanfare is the following fact: around 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq. The government is not describing them as combat troops. Instead, it is calling these soldiers advisers, as the Washington Post reports:

By the end of this month, the United States will have six brigades in Iraq, by far its smallest footprint since the 2003 invasion. Those that remain are conventional combat brigades reconfigured slightly and rebranded "advise and assist brigades." The primary mission of those units and the roughly 4,500 U.S. special operations forces that will stay behind will be to train Iraqi troops.

The Iraq War will continue to exact financial and physical costs on the United States and the people of Iraq.

The idea that these troops, tens of thousands overall, will not be involved in any military type activities, including loss of lives, to me seems a bit dubious. There is also another year for this new mission, whatever they call it, to go on. The spokesman interviewed by Rachel said we shouldn't call this a "war." That has some importance (just as those held in Afghanistan), but let's see how much that matters. I like Keith remember another "ending" some years back of combat operations, even if this time the qualifier "major" isn't included.

A major milestone, but the journey continues.

Film: WMDs and George Hamilton

And Also: Providing one of my duties as a resident, I filled out my census form today. It asked a few questions beyond necessary by express demand in Art. I, but "Who questions the power to do this?"

Green Zone was an imperfect movie but overall has a lot going for it. My problem with it basically was its simplistic plot development -- at some point, including a key moment near the end -- it had a tired standard "good guy vs. everyone else" device. This includes him acting very recklessly (including in ways that were tragic, though the viewer seems to be invited to elide past them) to support what he thinks is right, which at some point starts to get hazy. You might feel good about the film being on the right side ("why we go to war matters!"), but self-satisfaction only takes one so far.

But, the viewer can also see the problem with this approach. This possibility, which in some way might be part of the point, helps save the film from some criticism.* As noted by a news clip at the link, the film also has various real vets serving as extras and military personnel. This suggests that the film is deemed by people (including an advocate who has popped up on Maddow et. al., who has a cameo at a military briefing in the film) that matter as an fairly accurate portrayal of events. No matter that a disclaimer notes that it wasn't based on any one in particular, comparisons to Judith Miller et. al. purely coincidental.

And, it does make some serious points on WMDs and on our role in the Iraq War as a whole. Two Iraqis have key moments in the film, something some critics of The Hurt Locker for lacking such a local voice might find appealing. It does this as part of an exciting thriller, its movie aspects acceptable up to a point as dramatic license in telling a deeper truth. I still think the film got a bit much toward the end, less believable, even if aspects of that part of the film hit home.

Meanwhile, I recently saw another 2009 film (the year still was not great, but did miss a few pretty good films the first time around) on DVD, My One and Only. Narrated by a teen who will become George Hamilton, it concerns an odyssey by a wife played by Renée Zellweger, who takes a cross-country trip with her two teenage sons to try to find a husband to replace the one she just found cheating on her. Finding a husband she feels she deserves repeatedly is hard, though she tries to keep her spirits up and sense of decorum in place. It is a good character piece, one of those smaller films that make watching film enjoyable.

--

* SPOILER: Matt Damon's character breaches orders and recklessly takes a few of his men into danger, leading to others (including a special forces agent we are led to dislike) to their deaths when the meet-up goes bad. But, his justification for going there ultimately comes off as lame when he tries to explain it to an Iraqi who is helping him.

The film does not seem to invite us to be too upset that U.S. military personnel were killed by his reckless actions -- it ends with him leaking the news that there appears to be no WMDs and how the U.S. government selectively took the word of someone who said there was. Really, he should be up for court martial. But, the viewer can also see what happened. How he acted recklessly in pursuit of the truth.

The True Killer

Just to keep things in perspective:

An estimated 25 times as many Afghan citizens die every year as a result of hunger and poverty than from violence, according to a United Nations Security Council report. And as winter descends on the country, experts say, the death rate is bound to shoot up even further. ....

The severe poverty is one of the reasons people go to fight for the Taliban, where they can earn the relatively large sum of $100 a month, Levitt said. The same pressure motivates farmers to grow opium, which earns them four times what they would earn growing wheat.

More here. Related concerns provide support for other organizations that attack those people we like.

Update

Extended update at my contractor rape post -- complicating things a tad but the bottom line holds up. Don't want it, but yesterday was one day closer to a Phillies/Yanks series. Each team benefiting from a blown save by the opponent, erasing the margin of error (already nil).

Justice on Contractor Rape?

Jamie Leigh Jones was but one of several women sexually attacked by our military contractors.* As with torture, there has been a basic failure to actually have the government prosecute these cases. This sort of this is disgusting:

"American women working in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be sexually assaulted while their assailants go free," said Senator Bill Nelson, who called the hearing. Because squabbles about who has jurisdiction in these cases have proliferated, Nelson arranged to have representatives from the Defense, State and Justice departments sit down together in front of him. They were forced to listen while the latest victims testified.

As a Cato report noted:

As Salon magazine noted, since reporting the case, Leamon, like Jones, has found herself in a legal limbo. This is because Halliburton has an extralegal dispute-resolution program, implemented under Chief Executive Officer Dick Cheney in 1997. Once you get past the rhetoric about reducing lengthy and costly legislation, its actual impact means that employees like Leamon and Jones signed away their constitutional right to a jury trial -- and agreed to have any disputes heard in a private arbitration hearing without hope of appeal.

Must not "look back" though. The dangers of using mercenaries was expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

But as with selective concern with "northern aggression" by those in the South who tend to support foreign invasions that their foreparents deemed unpleasant when done to them, we often have a selective memory here. A Republican member of Congress did help Jamie Leigh and support legislation requiring reporting of such violent acts, reminding that this sort of thing is "not a political issue" (as in partisan). Tell that to the thirty Republican senators who rejected an amendment that would refuse funding to contractors who required arbitration when even in matters of:

(1) assault and battery; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the alleged assault; (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of employees involved in the alleged assault; and (4) false imprisonment

IOW, to apply exceptions to mandatory arbitration that the majority of the conservative Fifth Circuit held applies across the nation. Sen. Franken sponsored the amendment, and Jon Stewart's on point coverage is here. As Ms. Jones noted: "An arbitration proceeding is private and discrete and the outcome of arbitration cannot be disclosed to the public, nor can it be appealed." Many, like Ralph Nader, find them troubling as a general matter. They have no place here.

Of course, there is always the ability to seek criminal sanction. Sure, this is not a matter of a fake prostitute or talk of fake teenage prostitution. OTOH, it would mean looking backward. No, I think the need for civil litigation holds.

---

* If I was a member of the press as such, "alleged" might be warranted here, but the evidence is there to be sure that she and others were actually raped. And, as noted here, there have been convicted cases (if minor) of sexual abuse under the "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act." The article underlines the value of the use of the military includes that they clearly are liable for their actions, while contractors fall under a more hazy area. While ACORN is being targeted, we have this:

Earlier that year Ben Johnston, a DynCorp aircraft mechanic for helicopters in Kosovo, also filed a lawsuit against his employer. The suit alleged that in the latter part of 1999 he "witnessed coworkers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased."

And, "not nearly enough has changed." This includes many Republicans not apparently caring. As I said once before, why in the hell am I supposed to take them seriously?

Update: The amendment in question covers this ground:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

The DOD is wary but assures they support the spirit. I'm wary of statements like: "The department suggests that 'it may be more effective' to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction." What does that last part mean when dealing with firms that do things overseas?

As the text underlines, not just rape is in question. But, as tends to be the case, it is not like the opponents pushed for some bipartisan middle ground that did not include some catchall "sexual harassment" component. This would have helped prevent this wickedly funny blog from having such bite. (You can see/hear Jamie there in the Franken questioning vid.)

Not that depriving people the right to a day in court when their civil rights (including protection from sexual harassment) is an ideal "middle ground," especially when what is at stake is government financing and mandatory arbitration.

Various

“Phil Cuzzi saw the ball as foul, called what he saw,” said the umpire crew chief, Tim Tschida, who acknowledged that the call was wrong after seeing a replay. “There’s a guy sitting over in the umpire’s dressing room right now that feels horrible.”

Oh well. At least he feels horrible, right? Twins blew chances repeatedly, so hey, the guy had one specific job -- make outfield calls -- and didn't do it in the top of the 11th in the playoffs. Who cares, right? Well, those who want umpiring at the most important time of the year that is not subpar, perhaps. Repeated questionable calls in the Rockies' games underline it is not just Twins' games. Not that the play by play (contra Darling's analysis) was great either. And, subpar teams make enough of their own mistakes without additional "help."

In a reversal of Bush administration policy, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in March that the government would not prosecute medical marijuana distributors who comply with state laws. That announcement has emboldened Rhode Island to adopt legislation similar to New Mexico’s: it will license three nonprofit “compassion centers” to grow and dispense the drug by 2012. At least six other states are now considering the model.

But in recent weeks, law enforcement officers, some of them federal, have raided dispensaries in California and Washington State, and in the absence of any actual change in the federal law, many still fear prosecution.

This is absurd. Marijuana should not be illegal to begin with, for any number of reasons, including basic liberty and a pragmatic use of resources. But, can they at least lay off the medicinal marijuana growers? Give me a break.

Rachel Maddow did a segment on her always-superb show tonight about Ralph Lauren's recent bogus legal threats against various blogs -- including this one. Those DMCAs sent by lawyers for Lauren demanded the removal of a badly photoshopped ad which morphed a model into a lollipop-headed stick figure.

A noteworthy story really, even if the specific context seems trivial -- how many times do they overly photoshop or airbrush photos? As the person noted, this case is basically silly, but preemptive removal of such clearly protected material pursuant to the DMCA can very well affect much more serious material as well. And, the strategy here is a good one for others as well, who are just too bloody weeny-like when criticized:

So, instead of responding to their legal threat by suppressing our criticism of their marketing images, we're gonna mock them.

Rachel had at least one questionable moment last night all the same. During the segment on Afghanistan, where the MSNBC commentator went all Walter Cronkite and argued that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan in effect jumped the shark, our mission was compared to the one in Iraq. There -- unlike here -- we had a civil war and the people wanted the military to step in. Actually, I sort of consider there to be a civil war of sorts (at least) in Afghanistan. The Taliban (and others) are trying to gain control from the central government, right?

And, yes, to some extent, American forces (mostly American) were welcomed after we f-ed up the country. (Another fact not referenced here -- why forces had to be sent in.) But, only to an extent. Many still didn't want us there. Some in fact want us in Afghanistan (or Pakistan). Not to dwell on the point much, and there are differences, but I think they were simplified a tad here. RW should show more nuance when promoting ("mandatory" viewing!) special reports on her network.

Oh well. My desire for the Sox and Cards not to get to the next round was helped some more today. I knew the Twins were hopeless ... but do they have to rub salt in the wound? A-Rod doing much of the damage was not great news either. I didn't kill myself by watching much of the game, but the manager's expression when his second player ... versus the back-end of the Yanks bullpen ... swung at the first pitch with the bases loaded, resulting in another cheap out said it all. He took off his cap, looked away, and shook his head. The third out was the work the count / fly ball effort that they needed. Who needs the Mets?

For clutch play by gritty gamers, it is best to watch the Angels or Dodgers.

Kayla Williams

I recently re-read my comments on Kayla Williams' book on her experience as an Arab linguist. Her diverse subjects can be seen in her Huffington Post entries (military service, gender, torture, vet injuries, etc.). See also here. Again, very good book. Nice verve.

"The left" is at it again!

And Also: Two years seems a bit much, but J. wants community service for someone whose illegally possessed gun went off in a crowded public place. After all, it's unlikely such reckless sports stars will mess up again.

Responding to a question from Smerconish, Obama said, "The press got excited and some folks on the left got a little excited" when the administration last weekend made statements indicating that a federally run health insurance option was just one of several alternatives.

Can we SFU about "the left" or maybe the "left of the left" as if they are just a bunch of irrational* crying babies, or something? A quarter of the Democratic Caucus in the House signed a pledge drawing the line in the sand on the public option. Why? Because people knew they were being screwed. Now, "reasonable" sorts are saying (oh how unfortunate) they have to settle. It's sad and all, but reform is sooooo hard, especially when these people are "the principal voice" in the debate. Don't "the left" understand? Can't they be more like "centrists" like Baucus?

There are other things to bear. Glenn Greenwald and others can tell you about the secrecy and limited rights of detainees. Luckily, we have a judicial branch that "second guesses," so there is some pushback there. But, we still have him saying things like this, underlining why I opposed his "don't worry, I'm not a peacenik, look at my Afghanistan policy!" platform last year. The recent past had this, reminding us of this:

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Politics is the art of the possible and pressuring those in power that more is possible. OTOH, we were sort of misled to expect (hope for) "audacity," when what we get is a lot less. "Sir, can I have more?" Or, perhaps, we are meant to settle?

---

* This is the path to insanity. After the cows are out of the barn, perhaps, it is admitted that yeah, there was a risk of escape. BTW, sure, everyone knew that. Yawn.

Sen. Al Franken

And Also: I caught most of Clover, about a young black girl who is left to be cared for by a white stepmother (good to see Elizabeth McGovern with a plum role) on Hallmark. The book -- by an actual black woman farmer though the race angle is fictional -- was also well done. The "ghost" of the dead dad/husband is not really found in the book, which also solely is in the voice of Clover, but fits the visual medium all the same. A case where two sources work well in their own fashion.

There is a tradition where the justice with the least seniority has the responsibility of opening the door during conferences when they discuss cases if someone comes to drop something off. They are closed door affairs where only the justices are allowed. Justice Alito has that responsibility now, but soon (unless something striking happens), Judge (Justice) Sotomayor will have that job. She has made the rounds, but has one more place to go at the very least, since it involves a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I speak of Sen. Franken, who has been appointed to the following:

* United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

* Committee on the Judiciary
o Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
o Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
o Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security

* United States Senate Special Committee on Aging

* United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs*

Until about noon today, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) had the least seniority (appointed to replace Clinton), and by chance (or not) presided as the senior senator of Minnesota introduced Al. The Senate website was updated, though no website is there yet, but not the Roll Call list as of this writing. Sen. Franken -- not just a funny man any more or Air America host -- ran because Sen. Paul Wellstone's death touched him so much. And, he thought Norm Coleman dishonored his memory. Now, Al sits at Wellstone's desk. Being a sentimental guy, this clearly affects him.

As many who went on his show, including Paul Krugman, know, Sen. Franken is not only funny, sentimental, and a bit corny, but he deeply cares about progressive policies and is a downright smart (Harvard grad) policy wonk. This comes out in some of the clips in the "funny man" link, including when he talks to Letterman about his trips to entertain the troops, and at one point talks about how he has talked to experts who told him about the mental trauma service brings. It was the experts he brought on that might have been the best part of his radio show, especially to the degree just Al (after Katherine left) at times got to be a bit much.

Besides health care (Social Security and Medicare is of special importance to him, particularly as such governmental safety nets helped his wife's family survive), Al at one point spoke about the need to end the Iraq War. Besides wishing him good luck and asking him to remained principled and independent like his sometime guest Sen. Sanders (I-CT), this gives me a chance to toss out a top 10 war defenses.

---

* It is unclear how much influence he will have immediately in the health insurance realm, since (so it seems) his spot will be filled by Sen. Whitehouse (a good egg on some other issues) while the current legislation is being negotiated. Universal health care was a clear concern of Franken's during the campaign. There are over thirty thousand Native Americans in the state, and "Old Al" alone suggests the other committee is important to him.

The judicial slot is interesting though -- seems a big plum for a rookie without legal experience. Some of those subcommittees, though consumer rights etc. (e.g., he comes from a border state) fits his general interests, are rather technical. OTOH, that might be a plus in some ways.

Truly Honoring Prayer and our Armed Forces

On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

Let us also use this day to come together in a moment of peace and goodwill. Our world grows smaller by the day, and our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife; and to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. As we observe this day of prayer, we remember the one law that binds all great religions together: the Golden Rule, and its call to love one another; to understand one another; and to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth. ...

I [Barack Obama] call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.

Hilzoy has some interesting things to say about the criticism of some that Obama did not make the National Day of Prayer as public or sectarian (see also, Rachel Maddow last night, one voice noting that we are a "Judeo-Christian" nation since we honor God ... unlike Muslims?) as some would have liked. Obama is no absolutist on this, so the low key approach used here, the proclamation dictated by an act of Congress, is probably the best one can hope for.

This is so even though the selective call of religious unity runs counter to the fact that "a religion, even if it calls itself the religion of love, must be hard and unloving to those who do not belong to it." Well, that might be a bit harsh, but it is still true many religions are somewhat harsh to "unbelievers." This meaning a lot more than belief in a God to many people. President Jefferson also avoided this sort of thing:

[I]t is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U. S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded from them. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion.

This sort of thing should not be exaggerated, obviously, but it still suggests a basic rule: true separation of church and state cannot be absolute. Not in some overly artificial way of police not protecting churches or churches not having exemptions for their charity work, but that the POTUS must recommend people to pray as an official act. While doing so, it is likely s/he will do so in a way disputed by the religious beliefs of millions of people. And, in some small way, religion will be made relevant to public acts of the government in ways it simply should not.

It won't stop with the tiny breaches of the wall. Nor does any kind of discrimination. The reference to United States Armed Forces supplies a suitable bridge to another guest on Rachel's show:

[Lt] Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

The linked article puts this in Obama's hands because it appears to legal minds who studied the matter, even if Rep. Sestak (the law is the law, no matter how bad) on her show was hesitant about the path, that Obama could right not put forth an executive order to stop the investigations. Congress set the policy, but Obama can decide not to enforce it, I'd say perhaps as a moratorium while the Defense Department studies the matter. This is credible in part because the matter is now under judicial review. If Gitmo prisoners can be in limbo as the situation is examined, why not this policy?

[Thus, no, this isn't just some dubious "prosecutorial discretion" that can justify ignoring any law that might result in uncomfortable political consequences.]

2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao sent Obama a letter in January:

I am a Second Lieutenant currently serving in the United States Army. In addition to being an officer, I am a Christian, a woman and a Chinese-American. I am proud of all these identities. Lastly, I am also a homosexual. On December 21, 2007, I was appointed as an army officer. In the oath of office I swore that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, I will not be able to fulfill this oath because the current policy regarding sexual orientation contradicts my values as a moral human being.

A Christian? But, she's gay!! She received a letter back signed by the President:

Thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action ) I intend to fulfill my commitment!

Tsao also for her "actions" was kicked out of the military. It is unclear if Obama could not have done something to stop this. Some suggest these individuals chose their paths, that they decided to speak out ("action"). But, as she noted:

Originally I planned to leave quietly and reenlist in the Marines if the policy changed, but I was getting so lonely and tired of people cracking gay jokes and not being able to talk to my friend because of the policy.

She then quoted from the U.S. Army's Equal Opportunity Branch (EO) Mission Statement about how the military "provides an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior." This includes constitutional demands. And, these two individuals in effect are spokespersons for all those who must live a lie, which is damned hard, so in some fashion they "act" and violate the policy. Of course, being less public, the military can arbitrarily pick and choose who to dismiss. [Update: And, it encourages harassment of those who "act" "homosexual."]

That doesn't seem to honor the Golden Rule, does it? I recall the person who spoke about that rule also was not too enthused about public prayer; his guide to the rightful path was a bit harder than that. [Update: Steven Colbert made the same point yesterday. So easy sometimes.]

PS

One thing notable about Drowning in the Desert is how we learn, at times negatively, the personalities of many of the people a JAG officer in Iraq dealt with in her time there. I wonder if she had any blowback. The Mets are doing it again -- four games, and we had nail-biting, and the bullpen blowing it. Against a team supposedly with a dubious pen. With a fraction of their payroll. Stop it!!!!!

"Humanity Even for Nonhumans"

And Also: Drowning in the Desert: A JAG's Search for Justice in the Desert by [Captain] Vivian H. Gembara (co-written with her sister, a journalist) is an engaging account of her struggles to help the military "return with honor." The best she could, in the tradition of her father, special forces. I'd add that things like this underline that you can understand both sides, including all the pressures involved, but still fall on a certain side. Such as here, where overturning the conviction is no easy call, but the principle at stake makes Stevens' dissent (note he announced it from the bench) compelling.

Among the many causes reformers in the 19th Century promoted -- along with anti-slavery, health reform, women's rights, marriage equality (men/women), and so forth -- was animal welfare. This was not a new thing. One of the earliest laws -- in colonial Massachusetts -- respected the well being of animals. This had backing in the Bible, even when Genesis noted God gave dominion to man over the earth, this implied some sort of due care. After all, God has dominion over the universe, and He is said to be righteous to all of His creation.

This doesn't only apply to treatment of animals -- the ethicist Peter Singer grew into his animal rights stance applying general principles, and his writings up to the present day reflect the point. Respect for life has ripples. It grows out of many things, including our respect that animals have some interests, and can be harmed. We care for certain animals more than others -- be they cute or whatever -- but just as we can spread our care for humans outside of our immediate orbit, we have shown a growing respect for animals.

And, just as respect for humans need not all make us saints, respect for animals need not make us all vegans. There is more than enough more we can do, and continue doing, to help animals before that point. Not I dishonor vegans at all; the diversity of food alone is worthy of interest. There is an annoying lack of convenience foods at times, but the same thing might be said about eating healthy. And, in both cases, the diversity is generally present, particularly areas with significant ethnic populations or those concerned with healthy diets.

Nicholas Kristof's column, "Humanity Even for Nonhumans" inspired this entry.