Green Eggs and Bacon

Barack Obama says he's not soft on terror

2008-05-16T05:25:00.000-07:00

So maybe Obama can explain his plan to give Osama bin Laden exactly what he wants.

Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine

-- Osama bin Laden, audiotape, released March 21, 2008

. . . the situation in Iraq brings news that the victory of Islam and the defeat of the [American] crusaders and those who stand under their banner is near, Allah willing

-- Ayman al-Zawahiri, interview, released April 17, 2008

Back in December, bin Laden even gave an entire speech devoted to the need to throw the Americans out of Iraq:

My speech to you today is about the conspiracies devised by the Zionist-Crusader alliance under the lead of America -- in cooperation with its agents in the region -- to hijack the fruits of the blessed Jihad in Mesopotamia, and what our duty is in frustrating these conspiracies.

In light of these statements, Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq amounts to giving Osama bin Laden exactly what he wants. And that is softness on terror.

Straight from the Horse's Mouth

2008-05-08T19:44:00.001-07:00

In case you are still wondering whether or not Al Qaeda in Iraq reports to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, a recently released interview with Ayman al-Zawahiri may be of help. Here is one of the answers he gave about Iraq:

Q: What is your estimation of the current situation in Iraq? What is your position with regards to the jihadist movements in Iraq headed by the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and the Ansar al-Sunnah organization? . . . .

A: First, the situation in Iraq brings news that the victory of Islam and the defeat of the crusaders and those who stand under their banner is near, Allah willing. Second, regarding the distinguished brothers from Ansar al-Sunnah, I have clearly stated my opinion previously. Third, the Islamic State [of Iraq] is a step towards the establishment of the caliphate, and is superior to the other armed jihadi movements. Thus, it is these groups that are obliged to acknowledge [the authority] of the Islamic State and not vice versa. The Amir al-Mumineen Abu Omar al-Baghdadi -- may Allah protect him -- is one of the great leaders of the Muslims and mujahideen during this era, and we ask Allah to grant him and us the strength to stand upright, victory, and success.

I have put part of al-Zawahiri's answer in boldface here for emphasis. Notice that al-Zawahiri is saying that other armed jihadi groups in Iraq must acknowledge the authority of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who heads up the Islamic State, an Al Qaeda front group.

If you believe that Al Qaeda in Iraq, AKA the Islamic State in Iraq, does not report to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, you have got to ask yourself why would al-Zawahiri be insisting that other armed groups in Iraq acknowledge the authority of the ISI? Would he really do that if the ISI didn't report to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda?

Hamas says Jews perpetrated the Holocaust

2008-05-01T17:24:00.000-07:00

Yes, really.

You can read about it here.

The New York Times trumpets a nonsensical study

2008-04-30T06:02:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's New York Times had an article about a study of the death penalty in Harris County, Texas. The article began as follows:

About 1,100 people have been executed in the United States in the last three decades. Harris County, Tex., which includes Houston, accounts for more than 100 of those executions. Indeed, Harris County has sent more people to the death chamber than any state but Texas itself.

Yet Harris County’s capital justice system has not been the subject of intensive research — until now. A new study to be published in The Houston Law Review this fall has found two sorts of racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty there, one commonplace and one surprising

The unexceptional finding is that defendants who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill blacks. More than 20 studies around the nation have come to similar conclusions.

But the new study also detected a more straightforward disparity. It found that the race of the defendant by itself plays a major role in explaining who is sentenced to death.

The last sentence (which I have highlighted in bold) is the main point of contention. The article eventually quotes someone who is suspicious of the study's methodology. But a reader would have to go deep into the article to see that quote. And the article fails to point out the worst flaws in the study.

To see what is really going on, you need to look at the study itself. You can find it here. A few facts jump out:

First of all, as the article notes, of 100 defendants indicted for capital crimes in Harris County, 27% of the blacks and 25% of the whites were sentenced to death. No bias there.

However, after controlling for the mitigating and aggravating factors such as the heinousness of the crime, the study found bias.

But the study measured the mitigating and aggravating factors by looking at newspaper coverage of the case! So what if the newspaper coverage depends on the assailant's race? Many people have complained that a murder in a white area is big news, while a murder in a black area is not. So if the white area murderers get more thorough newspaper coverage than the black murderers, the study is going to find more aggravating factors, which makes the white murderers appear "worse" than the black ones, which in turn makes it appear unfair that they are sentenced to death at an equal rate.

That's not all. The study also reports that there were plea bargains in 38% of the cases with white defendants, and only 28% of the cases with black defendants. In capital cases, it is common for the defendant to agree to plead guilty if the prosecutor is willing to take the death penalty off the table. The statistics suggest (but do not prove) that the white defendants are more willing to plea bargain. Now, all other things being equal, a group of defendants that is more willing to plea bargain should be sentenced to death less often. But this is a result of the decisions of the defendant's themselves.

So you have a study which started with a situation that looks raceially neutral (27% of black capital defendants sentenced to death vs. 25% of whites). There are several confounding factors. Based on the newspaper coverage, the heinousness of the murders committed by whites appears to be worse than the heinousness of the murders committed by blacks. So the study controls for heinousness. Based on plea bargaining data, whites appear to be more willing to plea bargain than blacks. But the study's author, who realizes that a conclusion of racial bias will get more press than a conclusion of no racial bias, elects not to control for the defendant's willingness to plea bargain. And lo and behold, the study ends up concluding that there is racial bias.

The study's author is rewarded with coverage in the New York Times.

Find me one

2008-04-27T15:57:00.000-07:00

Find me one liberal with a detailed analysis of the Iraq war. Just one.

What do I mean by a detailed analysis?

I mean an analysis that answers the basic and natural questions. Questions like these.

Who are the suicide bombers? Where do they come from? Why do they go to Iraq?

Whom do they target? Why do they target those people? Why do they believe those people are legitimate targets? What do they hope to accomplish by murdering those people?

If you do any serious investigation of these issues, you will learn the following:

The suicide bombers of Iraq come from all across the Arab world. The most common countries of origin are Sauidi Arabia and Libya. Their most common targets are innocent Shiite civillians.

Huh?

If you think like a liberal, you now have a problem. These people are so outraged by the American invasion of Iraq that they go there to blow themselves up and kill . . . American soldiers?

no.

Innocent Shiite civillians.

Once you understand that fact, you are on the path to realizing that withdrawal is not an option.

And that is why there are no detailed liberal analyses of Iraq.

The New York Times is at it again, with a twist.

2008-04-24T19:10:00.000-07:00

Here is the New York Times describing Al Qaeda in Iraq [or Mesopotamia] today:

American intelligence says the group is homegrown but foreign-led.

This is a new twist. Previously, they always said something like this:

the homegrown Sunni militant group that American intelligence believes has foreign leadership.

So now the Times is attributing both the "homegrown" and "foreign led" to American intelligence. Is this simply an editing error? Or has the Times changed its line?

Meanwhile, in case you are still unclear on whether or not the "homegrown" descriptor is accurate, I decided to take a look at a few homegrown organizations here in the USA to see how many of them have foreign leadership:

United States Golf Association
American Contract Bridge League
United States Army
National Restaurant Association

After perusing all four websites for a while, I found names, addresses, and biographies of leaders of each of the four organizations. Strangely, not one of these four homegrown American organizations has any foreign leadership at all. Not only could I not find any top leaders who were from (say) Canada or England, but even when I looked at the second tier, I couldn't find any foreigners there, either.

In case you are still in doubt, here is some more evidence. The Islamic Army in Iraq was a legitimately homegrown Iraqi insurgent group. I haven't heard much from them lately. I'm not sure if joined the Awakening Councils, or even if they are still active at all. At any rate, back in 2007, they broke relations with the Islamic State in Iraq, an Al Qaeda front group. This conflict is described here. The two organizations had a shooting war back in 2007. Now that in and of itself doesn't prove anything. It is perfectly possible for two groups of Iraqis to have a war.

But what is interesting is the nature of the Islamic Army's complaints about the Islamic State. From the link above:

• al Qaeda in Iraq has divided the Iraqi people, failed to protect the Sunnis and brought the Shia death squads down on the Sunnis by inciting sectarian violence through mass suicide attacks.
• The Islamic State of Iraq in Iraq wants the Sunni groups to "pledge allegiance" to leaders, ministers and emirs whose identities are unknown, including Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.
• Islamic State of Iraq has continued to conduct an extensive campaign of assassination against rival sheikhs, emirs and insurgent group leaders, and in many cases added insult to injury by failing to give the bodies back to the families. One of al-Jabouri's own messengers was executed.
• The Islamic State of Iraq has no system of law or justice.
• Weapons and ammunition are being confiscated from insurgent groups that do not support the Islamic State.
• al Qaeda in Iraq is intentionally targeting members of the Iraqi Army and police forces, who al-Jabouri and other insurgents believe are acting in the best interest of Iraqis.
• The goal of the Islamic State of Iraq is to serve as a stepping stone to attack other nations, which endangers the Iraqi people.

Notice that several of these complaints are basically saying that the Islamic State is not working for Iraqis at all. The last two points are particularly notable in this regard.

It would be strange for a "homegrown" Iraqi insurgent group, which the New York Times wants us to believe Al Qaeda is, to do things like that. Very strange indeed.

More on the Big Lie Technique

2008-04-20T12:06:00.000-07:00

Following up on the investigation described in my previous post, I did a search for articles published in the New York Times during the last week that contained the phrase "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" but not the word "homegrown". Google had some hits which it thought were dated during the past week, but upon closer examination, they all referred to older articles. A few were from earlier in April, and others were from 2006 or 2007.

So in the past week, the New York Times has published 11 articles which refer to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. All 11 times, the Times asserts, without evidence, that the group is "homegrown". And all 11 times, it ignores the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, described here and here.

The Big Lie Technique at the New York Times

2008-04-20T08:58:00.001-07:00

I did a google search for New York Times articles containing the word "homegrown" and the phrase "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia". Google says there are "about 3,190" hits! It seems that the New York Times describes Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia [or Iraq] as "homegrown" very often.

That many hits are unwieldy. For one thing, it is difficult to tell how many articles generated all those hits. To get a sense of what is really going on, I did an advanced search limited to the past week.

At first, Google said there were "about 177" hits. But when I looked at them more closely, it turned out that there were 12 [correction: 11 -- one of the 12 is old.] articles and one photo description published during the past week containing the word "homegrown" and the phrase "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." These articles are all linked below:

24 Iranians, Held for Illegal Entry, Escape from Iraqi Prison by Alissa J. Rubin
Accounts Differ Sharply on U.S. Attack in Iraq by Alissa J. Rubin
Attacks Kill 39 in Iraq; Massacre Details Emerge by Alissa J. Rubin
Bomb Kills Dozens at Iraqi Funeral by Erica Goode
Bomb Kills U.S. Soldier in Baghdad by Alissa J. Rubin and Stephen Farrell

Bush Sees Iraq Progress From Troop Buildup by Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Dozens Killed in Bombings in Four Iraqi Cities by Alissa J. Rubin
Execution Case Tests Iraq's Bid to Ease Divide by Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and Alissa J. Rubin
Joint Chiefs Nominee Questioned on Iraq by Mark Mazzetti
McCain, Iraq War, and the threat of 'Al Qaeda' by Michael Cooper and Larry Rohter

Pictures of the Day, April 18
Two Different Accounts of Deadly Airstrike in Baghdad by Alissa J. Rubin
U.S. Investigates Civilian Toll in Airstrike, but holds Insurgents Responsible by Paul von Zielbauer

I've listed the author next to each article. As you can see, five of the twelve articles were written by Alissa J. Rubin. Two were written by Rubin and someone else, and the remaining five were all written by different reporters. In all, a total of nine different reporters contributed to the twelve articles. So whatever is going on, it's not limited to a single reporter, or even to a small group.

Next, I took a look at the sentence which made the Al Qaeda reference. Below, I have reproduced the sentence of each article which refers to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as "homegrown".

They said that the Iraqis who were killed were trying to defend their town from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni militant group that American intelligence believes has foreign leadership.

The group, a homegrown Sunni Arab insurgent organization with some foreign participation, had previously effectively controlled the neighborhood.

American military forces have engaged in major operations in the province for the past month and have succeeded in dislodging from Baquba Sunni extremists associated with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a home-grown group with some foreign involvement that has claimed a loose affiliation with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.

Sheik Amir Habeeb al-Khaizaran, a member of Parliament whose brother is the head of the Azawi group, said that the two men mourned at the funeral were killed by other members of their tribe who were loyal to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia , the homegrown Sunni insurgent group.

The American military warned Friday that intelligence reports indicated that “numerous” members of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence says has foreign leadership, “have entered the Baghdad area with the purpose of carrying out vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, or suicide-vest attacks.”

But he argued, as he has in the past, that reconciliation was taking place at the local level, and that Shiite and Sunni leaders were beginning to cooperate with one another to fight against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led.

“The security forces in the province are very good, but their biggest challenge is that they are fighting Qaeda, insurgency and other gangs and armed groups,” said Maj. Gen. Abdul Karim al-Rubaie, the chief of operations for Diyala Province, referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group.

If the government executes him, it risks alienating potential allies in the fight against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence officials say is foreign-led.

The officers said the American and Iraqi militaries had made gains against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign-led.

It is a largely homegrown and loosely organized group of Sunni Arabs that, according to the official American military view that Mr. McCain endorses, is led at least in part by foreign operatives and receives fighters, financing and direction from senior Qaeda leaders.

American forces also announced that they had killed a man they described as a senior terrorist in an airstrike in Musayyib, south of Baghdad, on Tuesday. The military said that the man, Abu Osama al-Tunisi, was a leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group whose leadership has foreign ties, according to American intelligence.

The military said that the man, Abu Osama al-Tunisi, was a leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group whose leadership has foreign ties, according to American intelligence.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is a homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence says is foreign led.

In each case, I have put the group's description in boldface. Interesting, isn't it? Every time, Every time, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, is described as "extremist", not "terrorist". Every time, the times claims without evidence that it is "homegrown", without supplying any supporting evidence, and also without mentioning the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And if the patently obvious fact that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is foreign led is mentioned at all, it is attributed to "the American military" or "American intelligence" -- thereby allowing a reader who is suspicious of the American military and intelligence to doubt the truth of that assertion.

The New York Times repeats a nonsensical claim

2008-04-19T17:21:00.000-07:00

In yesterday's front-page article about John McCain and Al Qaeda in Iraq, the New York Times published the following passage:

The entity Mr. McCain was referring to — Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, also known as Al Qaeda in Iraq — did not exist until after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. The most recent National Intelligence Estimates consider it the most potent offshoot of Al Qaeda proper, the group led by Osama bin Laden that is now believed to be based on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

It is a largely homegrown and loosely organized group of Sunni Arabs that, according to the official American military view that Mr. McCain endorses, is led at least in part by foreign operatives and receives fighters, financing and direction from senior Qaeda leaders.

Let's take a look at this, piece by piece:

According to the NYT, Al Qaeda in Iraq is "largely Homegrown." This is a claim the NYT has made before. It is contradicted by overwhelming evidence that Al Qaeda in Iraq was created at the direction of Osama bin Laden and shares the same philosophy, goals, tactics, and methods as the rest of Al Qaeda. This evidence is summarized here.

Then there is the statement that that Al Qaeda in Iraq is "loosely organized". Strangely, the NYT does not say exactly what it means by this. I guess it is supposed to give the reader the impression that Al Qaeda in Iraq consists of a bunch of Iraqis (since it is "largely homegrown") who don't like the US. Since the NYT does not say exactly what it means by "loosely organized", this phrase doesn't really mean much. But it helps the article's reader to believe the NYT's preferred vision of the nature of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We also have the true statement that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist before 2003. The liberal reader who reads this can easily jump to the conclusion that this, together with the allegedly "homegrown" nature of Al Qaeda in Iraq, makes its existence the fault of George Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Then there is the last phrase:

according to the official American military view that Mr. McCain endorses, is led at least in part by foreign operatives and receives fighters, financing and direction from senior Qaeda leaders.

By describing this as the "official American military view", the NYT makes it easy for its readers, many of whom don't trust the American military, to distrust this view. But again, if Al Qaeda in Iraq and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda share the same philosophy, goals, tactics, and methods, that is awfully strong evidence that the "official American military view" is correct.

UPDATE: In the same article, the New York Times had the following passage:

But some students of the insurgency say Mr. McCain is making a dangerous generalization. “The U.S. has not been fighting Al Qaeda, it’s been fighting Iraqis,” said Juan Cole, a fierce critic of the war who is the author of “Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi’ite Islam” and a professor of history at the University of Michigan. (emphasis added)

It was amusing, therefore, that this article just appeared on CNN:

Al Qaeda in Iraq calls for offensive against U.S.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A man claiming to be the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq mocked the death toll of American troops and urged his fighters to launch an offensive against U.S. forces in the next few weeks.

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, is the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

1 of 3

The speaker was identified as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, on several Islamist Web sites that posted the recording.

"The reason I give this speech is that the enemy declared -- even though it might be lying -- that its death toll in Iraq has reached 4,000," he said.

"So we call upon our heroes ... to ask every group within a month from the time it hears this, to offer the head of an American as a gift to the deceitful [President] Bush," he continued.

According to his Wikipedia article, Al Masri is from Egypt.

The latest mass murder in Iraq

2008-04-15T07:01:00.000-07:00

You may have read about this:

Car bombs kill nearly 60 in Iraq

By KIM GAMEL

BAGHDAD (AP) — Car bombs and a suicide attacker struck crowded areas in Baghdad and former insurgent strongholds to the north and west of the capital on Tuesday, killing nearly 60 people and breaking a recent lull in violence in the predominantly Sunni areas.

The attacks were a deadly reminder of the threat posed by suspected Sunni insurgents even as clashes between Shiite militia fighters and U.S.-Iraqi forces continued elsewhere.

The first blast Tuesday occurred in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, when a car parked in front of a restaurant exploded just before noon across the street from the central courthouse and other government offices.

Many of the victims were people visiting the government offices, petition writers helping people with documents in stalls outside, or the occupants of cars that were caught in the explosion as they passed through the area, witnesses said. Several cars and minibuses were set ablaze, while more than 10 shops and the restaurant were heavily damaged.

The article blames "suspected Sunni insurgents." Is that really a fair description? Who are their targets? "Many of the victims were people visiting government offices, petition writers . . ." That sounds more like terrorists.

Furthermore, this bombing bears some of the hallmarks of Al Qaeda.

The victims were mainly civillians (and not, for example US soldiers).
The means was a car bomb

Typically, al Qaeda targets Shiite civillians. From the article, it is unclear how many of the victims of this latest outrage were Shiites. But it is clear that they were largely people who had business before the Government. If you have been following the news from Iraq, you are aware that there has been a falling out between al Qaeda and Iraqi Sunnis who have decided to throw their lot in with the government. This time, the victims here were largely people with business before the government. Has al Qaeda, in its anger at losing the support of many Sunnis, decided that they are legitimate targets as well?

I suspect the answer is yes, but I don't really know. At any rate, I wish the article would have pointed out the similarities between this bombing and typical al Qaeda attacks -- as well as the one possible difference. It's something the reader deserves to know.

Human Intelligence and the war on terror

2008-04-07T14:43:00.001-07:00

The CIA helped, a lot, in winning the cold war. What about the war on terror?

A spy could be absolutely devestating to a group like al Qaeda. This is especially true if the spy were able to reach the highest levels of the target. Operation after operation would be busted, and al Qaeda would have no idea why.

There is a problem. To penetrate to the inner reaches of al Qaeda, the spy would have to participate in terror attacks. To really get their trust, it would have to include attacks that kill many people.

What should be done? Should the American people authorize this? The life lost could be yours or mine. But so could the life saved -- if we are really able to penetrate them deeply.

Not a pleasant question. But if we are serious about winning the war on terror, it's the type of question we have to confront.

Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed to the Law of Supply and Demand?

2008-04-01T21:33:00.000-07:00

From a recent news story:

. . . . Clinton has taken to lashing out at the Bush administration's oil policy.

"The president is too busy holding hands with the Saudis to care about American truck drivers who can't afford to fill up their tank any longer," she said.

Obama, meanwhile, said Monday a crackdown is needed on oil companies.

"[We] need a president who can stand up to Big Oil and big energy companies and say enough is enough," Obama said Monday

I've got some news for both of them. We have pretty much the same oil industry that we had back in 1998, when crude oil traded at an average of about $12 a barrell -- about one eighth of today's price.

The current spike in oil prices has very little to do with the oil industry or the Bush administration. It is part of a major worldwide rise of the prices of many basic commodities, including gold, silver, oil, and steel. The cause of this spike is a combination of still-high oil consumption in the USA and rapidly rising consumption in booming Asian economies, particularly China.

Heck even the Onion understood perfectly well what was happening -- back in 2005.

I have a feeling that both Clinton and Obama know perfectly well what is going on, too. I suppose I can't blame them too much for playing to their audience. But it sure makes them look stupid.

As for the Saudis, they could probably lower prices by increasing production. But they don't appear to be inclined to do this. And even if they were, would they really be doing the world a favor?

English Mullah says that killing of non-Muslims is legitimate

2008-04-01T15:02:00.001-07:00

This has got to be seen to be believed.

Dealing with militant Islam

2008-03-30T13:03:00.000-07:00

If you are liberal, you may have opinions on how to deal with militant Islam. I want to urge you to take a step back, and examine the evidence. If your opinion is simply the result of your dislike for Bush, you are not examining the evidence. Here are some questions to ask:

What does militant Islam want?
How does it plan to achieve those goals?
Can it be satisfied by concessions?
How does Iraq fit into the thinking of militant Muslims?

And the answers to these questions need to come from the statements of militant Muslims. It is not enough to think what answers they might give. You need to go find out what they are actually saying. Furthermore, you need to think about which statements are more helpful:

1) What they say, in English, to Westerners, or
2) What they say, in Arabic, to their own people.

I believe that the second group of statements is far more valuable. The first group of statements is intended to get Westerners to do what they want. Therefore, it is not particularly helpful in trying to understand their ultimate motivations. The statements that will explain what they want is what they say that is not intended for Western consumption.

Most readers of this probably don't speak Arabic. So you have to go to translations. That's why a book like the Al Qaeda Reader is so valuable. Raymond Ibrahim has gone to the trouble of finding what top al Qaeda leaders wrote, in Arabic, to the Muslim world. That is where you can get the best evidence of Al Qaeda's motivations, and its short-term and long-term goals.

If you research these questions, and you are honest with yourself when you look at the evidence, you will come to answers something like this:

1) Top militant Muslims, such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, want to convert the entire world to Islam. They have openly said so many times. (Here is another example) Furthermore, al Qaeda has won many supporters throughout the Muslim world. Therefore, it is fair to say that militant Islam, as a whole, is working towards this goal.

2) They plan to use force and violence to achieve these goals. They constantly say so, and they constantly glorify their violent deeds.

3) Short of the entire world converting to Islam and agreeing to adopt Sharia law, no.

4) Top militant Muslims view the defeat of the U.S. in Iraq as a stepping stone to other, intermediate-term goals. Commonly-expressed goals include the overthrow of secular Muslim regimes such as those in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and the destruction of Israel. Examples are here and here.

If you are honest with yourself, and if you listen to what these people are saying, these are the conclusions you are likely to reach. And if you reach those conclusions, you will realize that in this fight, there can be no end save victory. And you also realize that like it or not, the Iraq war is part of this fight.

The al Qaeda we are fighting in Iraq is the real al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

2008-03-23T02:29:00.000-07:00

Many Americans seem to think that the al Qaeda we are fighting in Iraq is somehow not the real al Qaeda. Here, for example, is how the New York Times describes it:

An insurgent group operating in Iraq, called Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, is actually a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign led. The extent of its links to Osama bin Laden's network is not clear. Some leaders of the group have sworn allegiance to Mr. bin Laden, but the precise links and extent of affiliation are unknown, and it was created after the American invasion.

It is revealing that the New York Times does not cite any evidence to support its assertion that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia [i.e, Iraq] is "homegrown". By contrast, I will give you evidence to support my assertion that al Qaeda in Iraq is part of Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda. That's how honest debate works. If you make an assertion, you give evidence to support it.

First of all, way back in 2003, Newsweek magazine reported that Osama bin Laden was shifting his fighters from Afghanistan to Iraq:

Bin Laden's Iraq Plans

By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Monday 15 December 2003

At a secret meeting, bin Laden's reps give bad news to the Taliban: Qaeda fighters are shifting to a new front.

During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.

The confab took place in mid-November in the remote, Taliban-controlled mountains of Khowst province near the Pakistan border, a region where Al Qaeda has found it easy to operate?frequently even using satellite phones despite U.S. surveillance.

At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden's men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan's ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said.

More recently, al Qaeda in Iraq has made its feelings about Osama bin Laden perfectly clear:

Al-Qaida front group airs video glorifying Osama bin Laden

The Associated Press

Friday, June 8, 2007

BAGHDAD: An al-Qaida front group aired a nearly hour-long video Friday showing dozens of masked men singing religious and patriotic songs and brandishing automatic weapons as they praised Osama bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban.

The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group that includes the terror network, included footage with excerpts from old speeches by the al-Qaida leader and slain al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who died a year ago Thursday in a U.S. airstrike northeast of Baghdad.

The songs praised jihad, or holy war, as well as bin Laden and Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar . . .

Furthermore, there is the matter of the home countries of the suicide bombers of Iraq. For this, my source is none other than . . . the New York Times. In an article last November, the Times detailed data captured by American forces during a raid in northern Iraq. The country that supplied the largest number of foreign fighters was none other than . . . Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, you may remember, is also the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, and of Osama bin Laden.

So what do these foreign fighters do when they arrive in Iraq? Buried deep within the article, much of which is intended to give the reader the impression that Al Qaeda is not an important part of the insurgency, the Times gets to the heart of the matter:

After the raid on the Sinjar cell, the number of suicide bombings in Iraq fell to 16 in October — half the number seen during the summer months and down sharply from a peak of 59 in March. American military officials believe that perhaps 90 percent of such bombings are carried out by foreign fighters. They also believe that about half of the foreign fighters who come to Iraq become suicide bombers. (emphasis added)

OK. So maybe you don't trust the American military. Perhaps they are making that up. Or maybe you don't trust the Times. I don't either, but when it reports news that goes against its liberal philosophy, my trust level for the Times increases. But just for the sake of argument, let's say you aren't yet convinced.

There is also the matter of whom the suicide bombers target.

Here, for example, is a 2005 report from Human Rights Watch (definitely not a gang of pro-Bush Zealots) which states unequivocally

In terms of casualties, the religious or ethnic group most targeted by insurgents in Iraq is Shi`a Muslims . . .

Shiite Muslims are, of course, the very same group that Zarqawi described in his leter to al-Zawahiri as

. . . the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom.

They also generally support the Iraqi Government, which, since it is trying to be a democracy, does not rule by Sharia, and is supported by Americans, falls into a group of governments that al-Zawahiri has variously described as "outcasts", "apostates", and "infidels".

Still not convinced? Let's take a look at the tactics of the two [in your mind, allegedly different] al Qaedas. First of all, there is al Qaeda #1, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. They like to use multiple bombs, timed to go off at the same time (or as close as possible), and planned to kill large numbers of innocent civillians. That's what they did on:

September 11,
The African Embassy bombings,
The Madrid bombings, and
The London bombings.

Then there is al Qaeda #2, al Qaeda in Iraq. Coincidentally, they also sometimes use multiple bombs, timed to go off at the same time, and planned to kill large numbers of innocent civillians. That's what they did on:

The Amman bombings (which, in what you must believe is a strange coincidence, happened on 11/9)
The bombings that killed several hundred Yazidis
These attacks which killed about 100 Iraqi Shiite civillians

On other occasions, al Qaeda in Iraq has used only a single bomb:

This attack, aimed at Sheikhs opposed to al Qaeda in Iraq;
This assassination of a sheikh opposed to al Qaeda in Iraq.

Summing up: Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq both:

* get large numbers of recruits from Saudi Arabia
* love Osama bin Laden
* communicate with each other via videos and letters
* agree that it is desirable to kill innocent civillians
* agree that Shiites are scum, and
* use coordinated suicide bombings

In light of all of this, the New York Times' description looks strange, doesn't it. It would have been much more informative if the Times had written a paragraph laying out the overwhelming evidence that the "two" al Qaedas are part of the same organization. But that conclusion, which is as obvious as could be, is not convenient for the Times. So instead they published the paragraph quoted at the beginning of this post:

An insurgent group operating in Iraq, called Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, is actually a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign led. The extent of its links to Osama bin Laden's network is not clear. Some leaders of the group have sworn allegiance to Mr. bin Laden, but the precise links and extent of affiliation are unknown, and it was created after the American invasion.

Now that you are aware of the evidence, it should be clear as day to you what the Times is doing. By slyly attributing the conclusion that al Qaeda in Iraq is foreign led to "American intelligence agencies", the Times leaves the door wide open for any reader who doesn't trust such agencies to doubt the truth of that conclusion. Of course, in doing this, the Times is economical with the truth, as it ignores all the evidence described above.

Then, the Times makes another sly statement: the extent of the connection between al Qaeda in Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network is not clear. Well, of course not; terrorists don't work in the open. But it is clear that the "two" al Qaedas share the same name, goals, tactics, targets, and leadership. What more do you really need?

Lastly, the Times points out that al Qaeda in Iraq was formed after the American invasion -- leaving the door wide open for the reader to blame Bush. Once again, the Times is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq is doing Osama bin Laden's bidding, but hey, when United States public opinion is at stake, who cares about trivia?

The New York Times is mystified about why Al Qaeda in Iraq is murdering innocent Iraqi Shiite civillians

2008-03-22T14:20:00.000-07:00

Here is the headline of a recent story from the New York Times about al Qaeda in Iraq:

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia

March 10, 2008, 6:40 am

Death and More Death. Why?

The story that follows is about an innocent family -- husband, wife, and daughter -- who were walking in a market in Baghdad when a suicide bomber blue up. The husband was killed, the wife was critically injured, and the daughter is missing. The New York Times has no idea why anyone would do such a thing.

They could start by reading the words of Ayman al-Zawahiri:

whoever claims to be a "democratic-Muslim" . . . . is an apostate infidel.

Now under Sharia, which is the legal code favored by al-Zawahiri, the punishment for apostasy is death. Since most of the Shiite citizens of Baghdad support the US effort to set up a democratic government in Iraq, they are apostates, and so, according to al-Zawahiri, killing them is acceptable.

And then there are the words of Mousub al-Zarqawi. In his letter to al-Zawahiri, which was captured by the Americans, he makes clear his contempt for the Shiites like this:

3 [sic]. The Shi`a

[They are] the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom. We here are entering a battle on two levels. One, evident and open, is with an attacking enemy and patent infidelity . . . . Shi`ism is a religion that has nothing in common with Islam . . .

Having made it clear that in his eyes, Shiites are utterly contemptible infidels, and killing them is acceptable, Zarqawi goes on to explain why he believes it is desirable:

4. The Shi`a

These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis . . .

In case the point is not sufficiently clear, Zarqawi repeats it:

I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi`a with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis. Someone may say that, in this matter, we are being hasty and rash and leading the [Islamic] nation into a battle for which it is not ready, [a battle] that will be revolting and in which blood will be spilled. This is exactly what we want . . .

Another way the New York Times could find out would be to read the words of Osama bin Laden in this article about al Qaeda's attempts to provoke a civil war in Iraq:

Declaring Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government as an "apostate government", Osama bin Laden said he was "pleased" with al-Zarqawi's "gallant operations" against the Americans and interim Iraqi Prime Minister.

Remember that in bin Laden's belief system, the punishment for apostasy is death.

There really is no mystery why al Qaeda is murdering Iraqi Shiites with bomb attacks targetting civillians. But the New York Times doesn't see the picture at all.

Al Qaeda's war aims

2008-03-22T08:50:00.000-07:00

Shortly after September 11, and in response to this letter from American intellectuals, bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people. This letter is reproduced in The Al Qaeda Reader. It details why Al Qaeda is at war with America and Al Qaeda's war aims.

This extraordinary document is 12 pages in length. This fact alone should give great pause to any American who thinks that we can have peace by withdrawing from Iraq.

Here are a few of the reasons bin Laden says he is at war with us:

The British, with your help and support, handed over Palestine to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than fifty years . . .

You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

. . . the governments of our countries -- which act as your agents, -- attack us on a daily basis . . . . The removal of these governments is an obligation on us . . .

You steal our oil at paltry prices . . .

After saying that his list (of which only part is quoted above) are only some of the reasons he has gone to war with us, bin Laden then states what he is trying to accomplish, i.e, his war aims. These war aims are more expansive than those quoted here.

First, the United States must convert to Islam:

The first thing we are calling you to is Islam . . .

Secondly, the United States must begin living by Bin Laden's moral standards:

We call you to . . . reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury.

You are a nation who, rather than ruling through the Sharia of Allah, chooses to invent your own laws . . .

Go ahead and boast to the nations of man that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American invention! [bin Laden seems to have forgotten that this portion of his letter is about war aims, not grievances]

. . . the Jews . . . control your policies, media, and economy . . .

Additionally, the United States must stop supporting Arab governments that do not govern by Sharia:

We call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries . . . .Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

The reader should understand that the above is only a portion of the war aims bin Laden lists in his letter.

Bin Laden then makes it clear that to end the war, the United States must agree to all of his conditions, not just some of them:

If you fail to respond to all these conditions then prepare to fight . . .

Al Qaeda is at war with the Muslim world, too.

2008-03-21T15:40:00.001-07:00

The next essay in the Al Qaeda Reader was written by Ayman al-Zawahiri. It is entitled Sharia and Democracy. To understand this essay, it is important to understand that under Sharia, the punishment for a sane adult male apostate is execution.

In this essay, al-Zawahiri makes plain his beliefs about the current rulers of the Muslim world. In his typical style, he repeats and restates this belief, over and over again:

The current rulers of Muslim countries who govern without the Sharia are apostate infidels. It is obligatory to overthrow them, to wage jihad against them, and to depose them, installing a Muslim ruler in their stead.

The Koran, the Sunna, all demonstrate that exchanging the Islamic Sharia with something else is infidelity -- especially in the despicable manner that we see today in the lands of Islam. These regimes that exchange the Sharia of Allah are outcasts . . . .

Al-Zawahiri also makes it clear that support Democracy is infidelity to Islam. As usual, he repeats the point many times:

. . . democracy is an infidel religion . . .

. . . we summarize the many faces of blasphemy that are inherent to democracies . . .

The bottom line regarding democracies is that the right to make law is given to someone other than Allah Most High . . . . whoever agrees to this is an infidel . . .

In the process of enumerating one of the many sins of democracies, al-Zawahiri makes perfectly plain his beliefs regarding the status of women.

[Allah] said: "Men have authority over women, for Allah has made the one superior to the other." But in a democracy, women have the right to emulate the dignity and legal status of men.

In his final summing up, al-Zawahiri restates the main point one more time, in case the reader has missed it:

whoever claims to be a "democratic-Muslim" . . . . is an apostate infidel.

Remember that under Sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death. This is always true for sane adult men, and often for women as well. It is because of this principle that Al Qaeda believes that attacks such as the following are justified:

Iraqi Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha murdered by al Qaeda shortly after he meets with Bush

Several hundred Yazidis murdered in four bombings shortly after an al Qaeda front group circulates leaflets warning that an attack is imminent because Yazidis are "anti-Islamic"

Car bomb kills 18 in quiet Shiite Baghdad neighborhood. Bombing bears hallmarks of Al Qaeda.

Suicide bombings on 11/9 (which is 9/11 in Jordan since they put the day before the month) kill at least 60 in three hotels in Amman, Jordan. Al Qaeda in Iraq takes responsibility.

Osama bin Laden is at war with us -- part 3 -- Iraq

2008-03-20T18:33:00.000-07:00

Al Jazeera aired a new tape from Osama bin Laden today. The tape gave us a perfect reminder of three blatantly obvious facts:

(1) Osama bin Laden is at war with the United States.
(2) Osama bin Laden sees Iraq as the most important part of this war.
(3) If the United States withdraws from Iraq, Osama bin Laden will declare that he has won a great victory and continue the war by attacking both Israel and secular Muslim countries.

The tape is brief enough that its text can easily be quoted in full: [edit: apparently, the following was an excerpt. The full translated text is available here.]

This message is to the Muslim nation on the siege imposed on the Gaza strip and how to break Gaza and Palestine free of the shackles of the Zionist enemy. The suffocating siege imposed on the Gaza Strip came into the existence after the support offered by the Arab governments to the United States and the Zionist Entity in Annapolis at the expense of the resistance in Palestine. This support is one of the ten forms of sacrelige, and as a result of their support, the Arab states are accomplices to this heinous crime. It is no secret to the Muslim nation that the nearest battlefield of Jihad to support and assist our fellow Palestinians is

Iraq

. We must brear this in mind and channel all our efforts in this direction. The duty of support and assistance must be shared by all Muslims in the neighboring countries.

Al Qaeda is at war with us -- part 2

2008-03-18T21:18:00.004-07:00

The second essay in the Al Qaeda Reader was written by Ayman al-Zawahiri. He is Al Qaeda's second in command, and also its chief theoretician. The essay is entitled "Loyalty and Enmity." This is Zawahiri's doctrine that Muslims must be true friends to each other only, and that all non-Muslims are their enemies.

The essay consists of three parts: theological fundamentals of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity, recent deviations from the doctrine, and a conclusion.

Zawahiri gets straight to the point in the opening sentence of part 1:

Allah Most High said: "Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] rather than believers; whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah -- unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.

The remainder of part 1 repeats, restates, and expands on this point. The following passage is typical:

Love and friendship for them contradicts faith. Allah Most High said: 'O You who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christains for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. [underlining in the original].

Part 2 is about deviations from the doctrine espoused in Part 1. For example, in the following passage, Zawahiri makes it plain that his contempt extends to the rulers of several Muslim countries:

Any observer of the Arabian Peninsula, Gulf Emirates, Egypt, and Jordan will see that they have been changed into bases and camps providing administrative and technical support to the Crusader's forces in the heart of the Islamic world . . . .

Through a chain of conspiracies, secret relationships, direct support, bribes, salaries, secret accounts, corruption, and recruitment, the enemies of Islam -- especially Americans, Jews, French, and English -- have succeeded in giving this clique power over the fates of Muslims.

In case Zawahiri's contempt for these rulers is not sufficiently clear to the reader, he sums up by saying this:

They are like lethal bacteria trying to overcome the human immune system, trying to destroy it to sow corruption in the cells of the human body.

In part 3, the conclusion, Zawahiri restates (again) the fundamental doctrine:

Befriending believers and battling infidels are critical pillars in a Muslim's faith.

He also repeats (again) his views about the secular rulers of most Muslim countries:

We renounce you; enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone [i.e, accept the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity].

Al Qaeda is at war with us -- Part 1

2008-03-17T12:59:00.000-07:00

In order to understand Al Qaeda, it is not enough to watch videotapes of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri understand that these will be translated into English and read in the West.

In order to understand them, one must read that which was not intended for Western consumption. One must read what they wrote, in Arabic, to the Muslim world.

Fortunately, a book entitled The Al Qaeda Reader allows one to do exactly that. It is a collection of English translations of Al Qaeda's most fundamental texts. It is Al Qaeda's version of Mein Kampf.

If you read these texts, you will immediately understand that Al Qaeda's war against us is total, absolute, and utterly uncompromising. It is not limited to any one country or issue. Rather, Al Qaeda's war aim is nothing less than the conversion of the entire world to Islam. Osama Bin Laden's offer to the US to end his war against us if we agree to convert was serious. Until the West converts, agrees to pay Jizya to Muslims, or destroys Al Qaeda, the war will continue.

The first essay in the Al Qaeda Reader was written by Osama Bin Laden. The essay was motivated by an exchange of letters between American and Saudi intellectuals. The Americans started the exchange with a letter entitled What We're Fighting For. It was an affirmation of American values and an explanation of the American response to September 11. The Saudis replied with a letter entitled How We Can Coexist. It welcomed a dialogue with Americans and explained certain points of agreement and disagreement with the American letter.

Bin Laden was deeply offended by the Saudi letter, not least by its title. He therefore wrote an open letter to the Saudis entitled Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West.

Bin Laden gets right to the point in his opening sentence:

Praise be to Allah, who said: "O People of the Book [Christians and Jews], let us reach an agreement: that we worship none beside Allah, nor assign partners to Him, nor take each other as masters in place of Allah.

The essay -- and in the English translation, it is 40 pages long -- repeats, restates, and expands on this point, over and over. The following passages illustrate:

What the West desires is that we abandon the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity [Zawahiri's doctrine that Muslims must be loyal to each other and hate non-Muslims], and offensive Jihad [the struggle to force non-Muslims to convert or pay Jizya]. That is the very essence of their request and desire of us. Do the intellectuals, then, think it's actually possible for Muslims to abandon these two commandments and simply to coexist with the West?

Battle, animosity and hatred -- directed from the Muslim to the Infidel -- is the foundation of our religion. The West perceives fighting, emnity, and hatred all for the sake of religion as unjust, hostile, and evil. But whose understanding of justice and righteousness is right -- our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?

Furthermore, how can [the Saudi intellectuals] claim that we have no right to force a people to change its particular values, when they transgress the bounds of nature? Such are lies. In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the land of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their system of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Sharia from being publically voiced . . . .

Having read these passages, you should not fool yourself. Al Qaeda will not be satisfied by American withdrawal from Iraq, from Afghanistan, or by any other concession, short of American conversion to Islam, or agreement to pay Jizya. Instead, these partial concessions will merely encourage Al Qaeda, smelling success, to step up its war against us.

This is not a pleasant truth, or a truth Americans want to hear. But it is the truth. As a nation, we must make our decisions based on that which is real, not based on that which we wish were real. We must understand the truth of Al Qaeda's intentions, accept it, and act on it. That is not the path we want to follow, and it is not an easy path. But if we wish to maintain our values, it is the only path that is open to us.

John McCain for President

2008-03-09T16:20:00.000-07:00

I am coming off the fence and declaring my support for John McCain. He has been right very often:

In 2003, McCain says more troops are needed in Iraq.
In 2004, McCain says that more troops are needed in Iraq.
In 2005, McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq.
In 2006, McCain says more troops are needed to stabilize Iraq.
In 2007, McCain is a supporter of more troops in Iraq.

McCain calls for Alberto Gonzales to resign.

McCain believes that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.

McCain believes in evolution

McCain supports NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and WTO, and opposes subsidies

McCain is against earmarks -- and doesn't even try to get them for his own state.

McCain says that rising costs are the fundamental issue facing American health care -- and adds that he will not tolerate deceptive practices by the industry.

McCain supports the death penalty.

Is he right about everything? No. There are some issues where he is half right:

McCain is against medical maraijuana -- but at least he doesn't want to arrest very sick people for using it.

On gay rights, he is all over the place. One gets the feeling that he wants to support it, but knows it would anger a lot of his supporters. Even Mr. Straight Talk sometimes makes the politically expedient decision.

McCain would be comfortable with a gay President.
McCain supports gay marraige.
McCain opposes gay marraige.
McCain supports leaving gay marraige to the states.

And on a few issues he is wrong:

McCain generally opposes abortion rights.

McCain opposes gun control.

Overall, McCain is right far more often than he is wrong. And he is right about the most important issue. A withdrawal from Iraq would be wrong, wrong, wrong, dead wrong; possibly as dramatically and disastrously wrong as Neville Chamberlain's surrender of the Sudetenland to Hitler. Therefore, I support John McCain for President.

Duke University still doesn't get it

2008-03-06T04:06:00.000-08:00

When you've wronged someone, try to silence them. That's how Duke is handling the aftermath of the Lacrosse case.

Doomed to repeat it?

2008-02-26T16:33:00.000-08:00

The West may be on the verge of repeating one of the greatest blunders of history. Let us look at the similarities between Al Qaeda and the Nazis:

1. Before 1938, Hitler had set forth his plans for Europe. (Mein Kampf) Hitler openly said that he wanted to defeat France then turn on Russia to get living space for the German people.

1. Al Qaeda has set forth its plans too. (letter from Zarqawi to Al Qaeda) (Letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi). In these letters, Al Qaeda discusses its plans -- to slaughter innocent Shiites in order to get the US to leave Iraq; and Zawahiri's plan, after the US is kicked out of Iraq, to establish a government there and, once that government is strong enough, to use it to create a "Jihad wave" in neighboring countries.

2. Before, 1938, the Nazis' murderous nature was already perfectly clear. (Night of the Long Knives; Kristallnacht)

2. Today, Al Qaeda's murderous nature is also well established (September 11; slaughter of 500 Yazidis by truck bomb; Africa embassy bombings)

3. In 1938, Hitler promised peace if he could only have part of Czechoslovakia. (at 3:30-3:50 in the video).

3. In 2006. Osama bin Laden promised a long-term truce if the US will only pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and leave them under the control of Al Qaeda.

4. In 1938, the leader of the free world was Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain was a pacifist. His convictions were deep and sincere -- he was even working on a book entitled "the struggle for peace"

4. In 2008, the leader of the free world is George W. Bush. He is not a pacifist. But Barack Obama has a good chance of becoming the next leader of the free world. He is a pacifist. And his plans for handling foreign policy bear an eerie resemblance to Chamberlain's.

5. In 1938, Chamberlain met with Hitler in an effort to solve Europe's problems.

5. Obama has said that if he is elected, he will meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

6. In 1938, Chamberlain's solution was to give Hitler control of part of Czechoslovakia in return for a promise of peace.

6. Today, Obama promises that if elected, he will pull US troops out of Iraq. This is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants and was one of his preconditions for a "long term truce". Obama does also say that he will maintain some troops in the region for "targeted strikes" on Al Qaeda (in case Al Qaeda follows its stated plan of setting up a base in Iraq after US withdrawal). However, the realism of this approach is highly questionable. With lots of US troops in Iraq, the locals can feel confident in fighting against Al Qaeda. A few US troops at a far-away base would not inspire the same confidence.

In 1938, at Munich, the free world surrendered part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in return for a false promise of peace. At the time, the decision was widely popular.

Today, there is a dangerous possibility that the US will surrender in Iraq, leaving the way open for Al Qaeda to take control of much or all of the country. This would be done in the false hope that it would bring peace. If the US does this, the decision will be widely popular.

Are we doomed to repeat history?

The sheer stupidity of the Democrats on free trade

2008-02-26T07:25:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lately been arguing over who is more anti-NAFTA. The argument is two-fold: NAFTA allegedly costs Americans jobs. Additionally, both have said they think the US should have gotten a "better deal" from Canada and Mexico.

Here is what Obama had to say:

We don't want to set off trade wars. What we want to make sure of is that our farmers are treated fairly,’ Obama said. ‘The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities.

And Hillary:

Time-out for Trade. • Hillary has called for a trade "time out" from new trade agreements as President, and she will not enter into new trade agreements until her Administration has reviewed all existing agreements and designed a genuinely pro-American, pro-worker trade policy that is appropriate for the 21st Century.

Have they forgotten the central lesson of modern history? Freedom works. Open societies, with free trade, have prospered. Closed societies, with closed markets, have stagnated.

One of the great and enduring strengths of the United States has been its large and free domestic market. This freedom is enshrined in the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states . . .

Without this clause, it would be possible for Oregon to enact a law against software products from the state of Washington (Sorry, Microsoft). Or for Nevada to tax the importation of movies from California (Good-bye, Hollywood). Or for New Jersey to forbid the use of financial services from New York (So long, New York Stock Exchange). And so on.

It's not just the United States. Emerging from the devestation of the Second World War, Europe has made repeated moves towards free trade. It started with the European Coal and Steel Community, which protected free trade in coal and steel among West Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux countries. From that humble beginning has grown the European Community, which promotes the free movement of people, goods, and services among 27 European countries. Ireland and Spain were

In the modern era, Singapore, China, and South Korea have all prospered through free trade. And all did so even before opening up their political systems.

Unfree economic policies have been tried. For example, in 1930, the United States ignored warnings from over 1,000 economists and enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, which was intended to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on 20,000 different imported goods to record levels. Other countries retaliated by raising their tariffs. Economists generally agree that this worsened the Great Depression.

Today, Germany and France, while enjoying political freedom and free trade, have generally unfree labor markets; for example, it can be difficult to fire workers. (German regulations are summarized here; French ones are described in numerous news articles; please let me know if you can find a more direct source.) Unsurprisingly, France and Germany also have two of the worst unemployment rates in Europe -- generally running around 8-9%.

On the central economic issue of our time, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both just plain wrong.

The New York Times does it again

2008-02-21T12:56:00.001-08:00

Once again, the New York Times publishes a highly questionable story, insinuating sexual improprieties by someone whose interests are aligned with its political opponents. For those who remember its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case, this comes as no surprise.

This is further confirmation that the New York Times simply cannot be trusted.

Why I voted for Hillary Clinton today

2008-02-05T17:28:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama, who has a sincere desire for peace, believes that peace can be attained if the world's leading English-speaking power surrenders a foreign nation to an irredeemably and unrelentingly evil enemy who promises peace if we only give him what he wants.

This has been tried before.

McCain will not surrender. Hillary, if you listen to her carefully, probably won't, either. Obama will.

Starting a new blog

2007-12-26T07:38:00.000-08:00

I am starting a new blog: http://smokeoutthetruth.blogspot.com/. The goal of the blog will be to determine who is telling the truth about important controversies of our time. The first post is an abbreviated version of the Mike Huckabee post below. (Abbreviated because not all of the post is appropriate to the new blog.)

The Wayne Dumond case: Why Mike Huckabee cannot be believed

2007-12-25T13:27:00.000-08:00

Wayne Dumond was a convicted rapist who was paroled while Mike Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas. After he was paroled, Dumond raped and murdered two more women.

Huckabee insists he did not influence the parole board's decision to parole Dumond. Several parole board members insist that he did. The decision to parole Dumond was a disaster, so each party has motive to blame the other. The question becomes -- who is telling the truth? Both sides have a motive to lie -- so the question is not as simple as some news reports make it seem.

What the interested viewer has to do is look at what the various parties did and said at the time. Anything they did or said after Dumond murdered two more women is useless as evidence. But contemporaneous evidence, when neither side had a motive to lie, will allow one to get to the truth of the matter.

In this case, there is plenty of contemporaneous evidence. This evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Huckabee is lying.

So what is the contemporaneous evidence? First of all, in August, 1996, the board voted 4-1 to deny Dumond parole. But after they met with the newly elected Governor Huckabee, they changed their votes to 4-1 in favor. So something caused them to change their minds.

Then, on September 20, Huckabee announced his intention to grant executive clemency. He faced a firestorm of protest from the victim, and from Dumond's other rape victims. Huckabee met with the board in a closed session, and, on January 16, 2007, the board changed its mind and voted 4-1 to grant parole to Dumond.

So, to believe Huckabee's story, one would have to believe all of the following:

(1) The four board members who say Huckabee wanted them to grant parole are lying.
(2) Three board members just happened to change their minds between August and January, without any pressure from the Governor.
(3) Although Huckabee had announced his intention to grant executive clemency, and faced a firestorm of protest over that announcement, and had, by law, to announce whether or not he was going through with clemency by January 20, it is just a coincidence that the Parole Board relieved him of that responsibility by voting to grant parole on January 16.

But that's not all. Shortly before the January 16 meeting, Dumond was transferred to a different prison in the Arkansas system. If that hadn't happened, his case could not have been considered at the January 16 meeting, and Huckabee would have had been forced to make a decision regarding clemency. So was this transfer a mysterious coincidence?

Still not convinced? Huckabee's former top Butch Reeves, who personally attended the fateful Parole Board meeting, has this to say:

The clear impression that I came away with from the meeting was that [Huckabee] favored Dumond's release.

And if you don't want to take the left-wing Huffington Post's word for that, here is a similar account on ABC News.

But wait, there's more. In 2004, after Dumond had been convicted of murder in Missouri, Huckabee announced his intention to grant clemency to convicted murderers Denver Witham, Dennis Lewis, and Glen Martin Green, and Don Jeffers.

So, to the above three points, we have to add three more. If one believes Huckabee's story, one also has to believe that:

(4) The conveniently timed transfer of Dumond to a different prison was just a coincidence.
(5) Either Butch Reeves is a liar, or both ABC News and the Huffington Post are lying about what Reeves said, and
(6) Huckabee, who in 2004 had a habit of trying to get murderers released from prison, didn't try to do the same thing with the Parole Board in 1996-7.

Perhaps that's not enough for you? There is also the fact that contrary to standard Parole Board practice, the Board did not keep notes of the fateful meeting with Huckabee shortly before Dumond's release.

Need more evidence? The Board also had a standard policy of not reconsidering parole denials for at least a year -- but it made an exception in Dumond's case.

Regardless of your political persuasion, if your powers of deductive reasoning have not deserted you, you can only come to one conclusion about the Dumond case: Mike Huckabee did ask the Parole Board to parole Wayne Dumond.

The question then becomes -- is this enough reason to decide that Huckabee should not be our next President? I believe it is. The Dumond case and the 2004 communtation proposals show two things about Huckabee.

(1) Huckabee doesn't know when to refrain from using his power. As Governor, the smart thing to do with a case like Dumond's is to allow the system to do its job. If you have a strong reason to believe the system is doing the wrong thing, you can intervene, but you had better be sure you are correct. If you aren't sure, or can't know one way or the other, you should leave the system alone.

(2) Huckabee is slow to learn from his mistakes. After Dumond was convicted of murder in Missouri, Huckabee should have realized that trying to get rapists and murderers freed from prison was a bad idea. But he went on to try to do the same thing four times in 2004.

Mike Huckabee should not be our next President.

Tom Coburn has a really dumb idea

2007-07-17T21:17:00.000-07:00

From an article about the border agents who shot at a suspected drug trafficer:

"Why is it wrong to shoot the [trafficker] after he's been told to stop?" asked Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma.

I can think of some reasons:

1) Maybe the person isn't really a drug trafficker.

2) Maybe he doesn't understand English.

3) If you told him in Spanish to stop . . . maybe he doesn't understand that either.

4) Maybe he didn't realize you were talking to him.

5) Maybe he doesn't realize you are a law officer. For example, he might think you are a thief.

6) He might be hard of hearing, or deaf.

7) Even if none of the above apply, the US does not have the death penalty for drug smuggling, or for running away from the cops.

Another New York Times misinformation campaign

2007-07-16T21:55:00.000-07:00

Engram over at Back Talk has been taking apart a misinformation campaign led by the New York Times. This campaign is designed to convince its readers that Al Qaeda is not the biggest source of trouble in Iraq today. I'm currently on vacation and don't have time to go into the details, but Engram has done an excellent job of explaining what is going on.

Letter to Lewis Libby

2007-07-06T05:44:00.000-07:00

Below is a letter to Lewis Libby. I would send it to his home if only I could find his address. Since I can’t, I’ll settle for posting it on this blog.

Dear Mr. Libby,

I was recently relieved (though doubtless less so than you were) to see that President Bush commuted your prison sentence, saying:

I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

I believe our President was absolutely correct. Doubtless your attorneys will continue to argue that you are innocent, and I take no stand in this debate. However, even if you are guilty, I believe that 30 months in prison for the crimes for which you stand convicted is simply too great a punishment. This is particularly true in light of your numerous good works and lengthy service to our country. My purpose in writing you this letter is to point out that there are many Americans who, like you, were given excessive punishment for the crimes for which they stand convicted. Based on what I have read about your life, I know that you have a great capacity to feel empathy for your fellow humans. I would like to share some of their stories with you. I do not personally know any of these people, but am moved by what I have read of their plight. I will start with the story of Patrick Lett.

Mr. Lett’s life is described in a recent appellate opinion:

After fourteen years in the military, Lett returned to civilian life the week of Christmas in 2003. It was not a happy time for him. He had lost frends and seen fellow soldiers killed in Iraq. He had also seen what he described as “some very, very strange things.” While he was in Iraq, his fiancee died. When he came home his father was dying. He had trouble supporting his children. He felt pressured. He was depressed. He began to drink heavily, which only helped the downward trajectory of his life. Lett felt, in his words, like “the lowest person on the face of the earth.

Lett then joined his cousin’s drug-dealing operation, and for five weeks delivered packages of crack cocaine for his cousin to various people. What Lett did not know was that one of these people was an undercover law enforcement agent. The Court’s opinion continues:

He felt guilty about his actions. He realized . . . that “it takes a cruel-hearted person to actually take advantage of someone who has . . . addiction,” and he “decided to . . . ask God to pull me back together, . . . which He did.” He quit selling drugs . . . .

Lett re-elisted in the military in October, 2004, and again rendered exemplary service to his country. His superior officers attested that Lett, a sergeant, was an outstanding soldier dedicated to the welfare of his men and to accomplishing whatever mission he was given. He made his men’s lives better and his superiors’ jobs easier. His captain said that Lett “exemplified the Army values” of “loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage.” He would be willing to entrust his life to Lett. . . .

Lett may have thought he had left his past behind him . . . [but] in September, 2005, a grand jury indicted Lett . . . . Lett pleaded guilty to seven counts of possession with intent to distribute . . . . Lett admitted to selling 60.42 grams of crack cocaine and 7.89 grams of powder cocaine . . .

Without going into the legal details, the judge originally thought that he was required to sentence Lett to a mandatory minimum of five years. He did so. Then a law student pointed out that the judge was mistaken, and Lett’s attorney had also missed the error. A week after the original sentence, the judge resentenced Lett to probation. The government appealed, arguing that the judge had no authority to correct this sentence. The appeals court agreed with the government, along the way making the observations I quote above. Further appeals are still possible, but as things currently stand, the district court will be required to give Lett a five-year sentence.

Like you, Lett has done great service for his country. Like you, I believe Lett was given an excessive sentence for his crimes. Like you, he faced Government attorneys determined to argue for that excessive sentence. Unlike you, he has not, to date, received the benefit of a Presidential commutation.

You and Lett are far from the only Americans on the receiving end of an excessive and irrational sentence. Others include David Henson McNab (currently serving eight years for importing lobster tails in violation of certain Honduran regulations – though the Honduran government has given contradictory information about whether or not these regulations are in fact valid), Genarlow Wilson (currently serving 10 years for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when Mr. Wilson was 17), and Elisa Kelly and George Robinson (currently serving 27 months for serving alcohol at their son’s 16th birthday party). Of the above people, Lett, McNab, Wilson, and Kelly are first offenders. I was unable to find any information on whether or not Robinson had a prior record.

While some amount of prison time might be justified in each of the above cases, none of these people deserved the harsh punishments they have received. Our system appears unable to recognize this or do anything about it. As you have yourself just gone through such an experience, I thought their stories might be of interest to you.

Sincerely,

William Jockusch

Libby's prison sentence commuted

2007-07-03T01:58:00.001-07:00

President Bush has commuted Lewis Libby's 30-month sentence for perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice. I doing so, he characterized Libby's sentence as "excessive". This characterization was absolutely correct.

It has long been known that the Bush administration values loyalty over other virtues such as integrity. By lying to the investigators, Libby was doing neither more nor less than what Bush would have expected of him. So it is appropriate that Bush should take political heat for Libby's action, rather than Libby having to live the pain of prison. By commuting Libby's sentence, Bush is taking the responsibility on himself, which is exactly where it belongs. In this sense, the commutation was appropriate. If the American people want an Administration with integrity, let them elect one.

Lest anyone think that lack of integrity is strictly a Republican vice, let us remember that President Clinton, like Lewis Libby, also committed perjury. For this he was impeached by the House. The Senate then acquitted him -- not because they thought he might be innocent, but because they felt his perjury was too petty to warrant removal from office.

There is, however, one sense in which the Bush commutation is highly hypocritical. During his term in office, Bush has almost never used his pardon and commutation powers, and has generally pushed for stricter criminal sentencing. This strict sentencing has lead to other sentences which are just as unfair as Lewis Libby's. Yet the President has not commuted those sentences. The message, apparently, is that crime should be punished severely -- unless it is done in the service of the President.

Anne Ream's bigoted mind

2007-07-02T15:09:00.000-07:00

Anne Ream's recent column in the Chicago Tribune was bad enough. But her recent attempt to justify herself is even worse. Taken together, the two reveal Ms. Ream's bigoted mind.

According to Ms Ream, she is looking at the whole thing "in moral terms". In her column, Ms. Ream condemns the Lacrosse players because:

1) Three of them hired strippers.
2) Most drank alcohol at the party.
3) One of them made a raunchy joke about a broomstick, and
4) Another sent a tasteless joking Email.

The young men have been publicly introspective. David Evans said on 60 minutes that, in choosing to help host a party with strippers, he made a "terrible judgment".

For his part, Reade Seligmann, talking about the party, said he "felt . . . obligated to go." As for the strippers, he said he "found out [about them when he] got there". And apparently he didn't like the party too much, because within 15 minutes of the start of the dancing, he was calling a taxi to take him elsewhere. However, when he found out he would likely be indicted, Mr. Seligmann said “thank god they picked me!” He said this because he knew he could prove his innocence – and others might not have been able to. This sentiment reveals a kind heart and generous spirit.

But what do we know about Ms. Magnum?

1. She was a stripper.
2. That evening, she was passed out drunk.
3. According to the Attorney General's report, when the AG's office interviewed her, her state of mind appeared to have been altered by some unknown drug.
4. According to her own account, she once helped deal drugs!
5. She accused three innocent people of a rape that never happened.

Yet Ms. Ream condemns the Lacrosse players, but not Ms. Magnum! Indeed, in her attempt to justify herself, Ms. Ream views sex workers as people making the best of a difficult situation, and declines to find anything wrong with Ms. Magnum's conduct.

I will be honest with you, Ms. Ream. It looks to me like you have something against men. Of the men, you write that "legal vindication is not moral vindication." Yet on one count (being or hiring strippers), it looks like Ms. Magnum's conduct was more or less equivalent to that of the Lacrosse players. On another (drinking vs. being passed out drunk), Ms. Magnum's was somewhat worse. On a third (dealing drugs vs. not dealing drugs) and fourth (accusing someone of a "crime" that never happened vs. not doing so), Ms. Magnum was far worse by any standard. By choosing to condemn the men, but not Ms. Magnum, you only reveal your own bigotry.

Bigotry such as Ms. Ream's is harmful to real rape victims. It also hurts boys and young men. Because when they grow up reading writings like Ms. Ream's, they can start to think that there is something wrong with them -- or that they are somehow bad, just for being male.

Ms. Ream's column about the Duke Lacrosse case in the Chicago Tribune ends with a parting shot about "the myth of the 'false report' of rape." This post will end with a parting shot for Ms. Ream:

How exactly does the Duke Lacrosse case show that false reports of rape are mythical?

Lies, Damned Lies, and Iraq

2007-06-24T05:14:00.000-07:00

If you want to get a clear picture of the war in Iraq, you must read news sources of all political stripes. If you are a liberal and you get your information only from liberal politicians and news sources, you will be missing a vital part of the picture. The same is true if you are a conservative and you get your information only from conservative politicians and news sources.

The purpose of this post is to document the truth of the above. We will do this by examining how both liberal and conservative politicians have chosen to mislead the public about Iraq. Along the way, we will take a look at the different ways in which they have done this, and the degrees of guilt which they have.

First of all, the verb "to lie" is ambiguous. It is simply overbroad to talk about whether a certain statement is or is not a "lie". The law identifies at least five different levels of guilty thought with respect to certain actions, and they will be useful to us here. They are:

1. Intention. For instance, if a person plans to bring marijuana into the US from Mexico, then does.

2. Knowledge. For instance, a driver sees that a passenger has brought a backpack full of marijuana into his car, and then drives the passenger into the US. The law generally treats “willful blindness” at the same level of guilt as knowledge. For instance, if someone hands you a sealed backpack, and says he will pay you $1000 to bring it across the border, and you do so, without looking to notice the cocaine inside, you are complicit in the cocaine smuggling because of your willful blindness.

3. Recklessness. For instance, if you drive drunk at 80 miles an hour along a dark highway, and you crash and kill someone, you are guilty of reckless homicide.

4. Negligence. For instance, if you drive within the speed limit along an unfamiliar road, fail to notice a stop sign, then drive through the stop sign and kill someone, you may be guilty of negligent homicide. Or if you build a car without thinking about the chance that the fuel tank could ignite, and then the fuel tank does ignite and kills someone, you may also be guilty of negligent homicide. In cases like these, you may or may not be criminally charged, depending on how outrageous the prosecutor thinks your actions are or are not. You will, however, almost certainly lose a civil lawsuit.

5. Strict liability. This means that you did something that was wrong and are at fault, regardless of whether you had any idea that what you were doing was wrong or not. For example, in some jurisdictions, statutory rape is a crime of strict liability. It is no defense to say “she told me she was 16” if it later turns out that she was 15. (In other jurisdictions, this is a defense in that case, but not if it later turns out that she was 12.) Strict liability also applies in some civil cases.

The other issue is omissions. Can you be guilty of a crime for failing to do something, or to say something? It depends on the crime. For purposes of our discussion, the most relevant analogous crime is fraud. And you can be guilty of fraud for an omission. For instance, if you sell someone your home without mentioning that it is contaminated with dioxin, you are guilty of fraud. You are guilty even if everything you did say while selling your home was true.

With the above in mind, we will look at the level of guilt of the Bush administration with respect to the question of whether or not Saddam posessed weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Also we will look at the level of guilt of the Democrats and various media with respect to the question of whether or not the US is confronting Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2007.

Bush and Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction:

"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons."

-- Colin Powell, speech to the United Nations, February 5, 2003.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

-- George Bush, ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, March 18, 2003

Let’s look at different levels of guilty knowledge and see where Bush and Powell fell:

1. Intention. It appears that neither Bush nor Powell intentionally lead the public to believe information which he knew to be false. In other words, it appears that the administration did not have proof that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. So by causing the public to believe that Saddam did have WMD, the Bush administration was not committing an intentional fraud.
5. Strict liability. It is indisputable that under a strict liability standard, both Bush and Powell did mislead the public. Because it caused people to believe that Saddam’s regime did have WMD in 2002-3, when in fact it did not.
2-4. Knowledge, willful blindness, recklessness, and negligence. Here things get interesting.

Both Bush and Powell were relying on intelligence assessments when they made these statements. So the question becomes -- in their respective positions, how much control did they have over these intelligence assessments? And what signals did they send to the intelligence services?

For both of them, the cases will be circumstantial. When dealing with someone's state of mind, that is normal. You can't observe it directly.

Bush: As President, Bush is the Commander in Chief. He has great influence over where the CIA should direct its resources and how it should report its findings. Persistent news reports indicate that people in the CIA knew that Bush wanted to continue to be told that Saddam had WMD. For example, a Newsweek story has this to say about an agent named "Curve Ball" who claimed that Saddam had chemical weapons:

After reading Powell's [as-yet-undelivered UN] speech, the analyst decided he had to speak up . . . . He wrote an urgent e-mail to a top CIA official warning that there were even questions about whether Curve Ball "was who he said he was." Could Powell really rely on such an informant as the "backbone" for the U.S. government's claims that Iraq had a continuing biological-weapons program? The CIA official quickly responded: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say," he wrote. "The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about."

As President, Bush was himself the top person among the Powers That Be, and he chose many of the others. The story does not suggest that Bush himself knew that Curve Ball could not be trusted. What it does suggest is that people under Bush realized that he didn't want to know. This is willful blindness by Bush with respect to the question of whether or not Curveball could be trusted. And it is recklessness with respect to the question of whether or not Saddam had WMD. It was not willful blindness with respect to whether or not Saddam had WMD, because even if Bush had learned the information from Curveball could not be trusted, he still would not have known whether Saddam had WMD or not.

The question then becomes -- how much credence can one put in this news report, and many others like it? After all, news organizations can, and frequently do, write misleading stories? I believe that in this case, the stories can be trusted. The reason is that Bush never made any public postwar statement in which he seemed particularly angry that the CIA mislead him about Saddam's WMD. Since this question was so important to Bush before the war, one would expect that if Bush were angry about being mislead, he would have said so. He didn't.

As for Powell, he was relying on the same CIA agents that Bush was. Unlike Bush, however, Powell has frequently made it clear that he wanted to be told the truth. For example, in his first major interview after he left the Administration, Powell had this to say about his speech:

I'm very sore. I'm the one who made the television moment. I was mightily disappointed when the sourcing of it all became very suspect and everything started to fall apart.

Powell has frequently made similar statements. It all makes it clear that he was a man who wanted to tell the truth. A hallmark of reckless behaviour is not caring what the consequences might be. So Colin Powell was not reckless. However, he was negligent. Because if he had thought about it carefully, he could have realized that Bush wanted the CIA to tell him that those weapons were there.

Al Qaeda, Iraq, and the Democrats

General Petraus talks all the time about the fact that his number one priority in Iraq is to disrupt Al Qaeda. The central fact of this war is that Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Dome of the Shiite Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra in February, 2006, setting off a wave of violence that continues to this day.

Yet when most Democrats talk about Iraq, they manage to ignore this. Here, for instance, is a major speech Hillary Clinton gave on Iraq. Ms. Clinton managed to go on for several pages without even once mentioning Al Qaeda. Here is a speech from Barack Obama in which he mentions the Iraqi "civil war" without mentioning that it is deliberately provoked by Al Qaeda. With a few notable exceptions, when Democrats do mention Al Qaeda in relation to Iraq, it is usually to criticise President Bush for "diverting resources to Iraq, thereby distracting the US from the fight against Al Qaeda".

But Chris Dodd topped them all by saying the following:

Not at all here. Again, this is a civil war going on in Iraq. This is not the United States versus Al Qaida. It's Shia versus Sunnis tearing each other apart. It's gone on for centuries, but particularly here right now.

By pretending that Al Qaeda is not the main enemy in Iraq, these Democrats are misleading the public. Since the evidence of Al Qaeda's involvement in the war is indisputable and plain to see (heck, they even talk about it on the web), these Democrats all are either intentionally misleading the public, or have willful blindness as to what is going on. Their exact degree of guilt depends on what information has been made available to them. For instance, if one of them has been briefed by General Petraus about his efforts to combat Al Qaeda, and then goes on pretending that this is not happening, it is an intentional deception. Otherwise, it is willful blindness.

In general, the higher someone's position is, the greater their degree of guilt is likely to be with regard to a deception. Thus, on the Republican side, Bush is the most responsible for falsely persuading the American public that Saddam had WMDs in 2002-3. On the Democratic side, the three influential Senators mentioned above all have high degrees of guilt for falsely persuading part of the American public that Al Qaeda is not our biggest enemy there today. By contrast, Joe Democrat who is a columnist in the local newspaper may only be guilty of negligence for helping to prepetuate that same deception.

This has been a long post. But the moral of it all is a vital point which bears repeating: if you want to have an accurate picture of a contentious issue, you must read information from people on different sides of that issue. Because all sides will mislead you when it suits their purposes. Remember that the next time you hear someone complain that "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" are misleading the public about something.

The New York Times still doesn't get it

2007-06-16T17:56:00.000-07:00

In its article about Mike Nifong's disbarment, the Times quotes the following statement from Mr. Nifong:

Mr. Nifong said her accusation and identification were the main reasons he filed the case. He said most police officers and the sexual assault nurse believed the woman, but there was no other evidence.

Unsurprisingly, the Times manages not to find room to refute these assertions. Such as that the accuser identified "suspects" only on . . . her seventh try? And only after she was shown a lineup . . . with no fillers? So that all the choices were correct? Or that according to the relevant professional standards, the nurse in question . . . had no business reporting whether she believed the woman or not, and should have limited her report to her medical observations?

It is interesting to contrast this treatment of Mr. Nifong with the Times' recent treatment of a of a prominent Republican who has been in the news because of his legal woes. From a recent article about Lewis Libby:

Mr. Libby’s lawyers made a last-ditch argument today, asserting that the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, had been given too much independence. The judge dismissed that argument, saying that Mr. Fitzgerald was subservient to the Justice Department and thus could have been dismissed.

One telling moment came as Judge Walton referred to a motion filed by 12 law professors asserting that there were appealable issues in the case. The judge dismissed the motion, remarking acidly that it was “not worthy of a first-year law student.”

While Mr. Libby's credibility is poor in the wake of his convictions for false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice, it remains higher than Mr. Nifong's. Yet the Times reports why arguments by Mr. Libby's lawyers and other supporters should not be believed -- but uncritically reports ludicrous assertions by Mr. Nifong.

Laying the groundwork for a criminal trial

2007-06-15T17:47:00.000-07:00

In the cross examination of Mike Nifong, Bar Prosecutor Lane Williamson appears to be laying the groundwork for possible criminal prosecution. On several occasions, he got Nifong to admit that he made a false statement of material fact to the court. Of course, Nifong claimed that the falseness of these statements was "unintentional".

All the news thats fit to slant

2007-06-14T19:35:00.000-07:00

The New York Times did its best to persuade its readers that the Duke 3 might be guilty of the charges against them. Now it seems equally determined to persuade its readers that Mike Nifong might be innocent of the ethics charges against him. Today's article on Mr. Nifong's ethics trial quotes only the apparently=exculpatory (for Mr. Nifong) testimony from the not-at-all-credible Dr. Meehan about why DNA evidence was not turned over to the defense, while studiously avoiding any mention of the fact that Dr. Meehan's testimony stands in direct contradiction to both his own December 15 testimony on the same issue, and to Mr. Nifong's statements in a press conference he gave immediately after the December 15 hearing.

Officer Himan's testimony

2007-06-12T18:00:00.000-07:00

KC Johnson has written up portions of Officer Himan's testimony in the Nifong ethics trial. If Officer Himan's testimony is to be believed, he was a reluctant participant in the conspiracy to frame the Duke three. For example, when Nifong wanted to in indict, he indicated his skepticism in discussions with Nifong. But, when push came to shove, he went to the Grand Jury and gave the evidence that led to the indictments. So while Officer Himan was a reluctant participant, he was a participant nonetheless.

After Officer Himan's testimony, I don't understand how he can continue to be a police officer. If he ever testifies in court, his testimony today will give the defense attorney plenty of ammunition against him in cross examination. For instance, Officer Himan would have to answer "yes" to questions like these:

"Officer, have you ever participated in a police procedure that was designed to obtain information you felt would be misleading?"

"Did that procedure in fact produce information that you felt was misleading?"

"Did you then use that information to obtain criminal indictments against people you felt were innocent?"

The test of character that Officer Himan was faced with was not an easy one. Superiors wanted him to do things that he knew, or should have known, were wrong. Officer Himan failed to stand up to his superiors. In light of this, the honorable thing for Officer Himan to do now is to resign.

I also felt it would be interesting to look at how the authorities have treated reluctant participants in other criminal conspiracies. I did a google search to try to come up with some examples. WorldCom's controller David Myers was a reluctant participant in that fraud, according to his lawyer. Myers cooperated with prosecutors, and was later sentenced to one year and one day in prison. While this was doubtless unpleasant for Mr. Myers, it was still far better than 5-year sentence given to CFO Scott Sullivan, or the 25-year sentence given to CEO Bernard Ebbers.

I also came across a prostitution conspiracy in which the leader was sentenced to 43 months, and a reluctant particepant apparently was not given any criminal punishment. Also, there was an arson conspiracy in which the leader got 57 months, and an alleged reluctant participant got 40 months.

Strangely, the high-ranking hits did not include any drug conspiracies. Since this is the most commonly prosecuted type of criminal conspiracy, I did some more google searches to find some of those. Strangely, I didn't get any hits. Apparently, the authorities don't give participants in drug conspiracies any breaks if their participation was reluctant. Or if they do, they don't talk about it in those terms.

I hope that someday the conspiracy to frame the Duke 3 is the subject of a criminal prosecution. And I believe that reluctant participants such as Officer Himan should not escape punishment. However, their punishment should be far less than that given to Mike Nifong, who was the leader of the conspiracy.

Unfortunately, I believe it is much more likely that the criminal prosecution, if there is one, will not go that deep. If this happens, it will send a terrible message to police officers everywhere. Effectively, such a decision would tell them that it is OK to help frame someone, as long as your superiors order you to do so.

Outrage in Georgia

2007-06-12T04:25:00.000-07:00

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker has forgotten about justice. He has chosen to pursue a ludicrous appeal, designed to keep Genarlow Wilson in prison, serving a ten-year sentence for consensual oral sex with a girl, at a time when the girl was 15 years old, and Mr. Wilson was 17.

Kids will be kids. They will do things that kids do. Like it or not, sex is one of those things. If Georgia locked up every kid who did what Mr. Wilson did, I daresay there would be a lot of empty chairs in the Georgia Governor's Office, Legislature, and even the Attorney General's Office.

This is the same Georgia that has Teresa Fargason sitting in prison, framed by the police for the murder of her daughter. The case has been broadcast on Court TV, among other places. Apparently, the state of Georgia has the resources to keep fighting to lock up Mr. Wilson, but it cannot spare the time or money to find out why the police framed Teresa Fargason for a murder that was almost certainly committed by then-police officer James Glover. Perhaps they are waiting for Mr. Glover to murder another six-year-old girl?

Fixing the death penalty system

2007-06-11T15:25:00.001-07:00

In this post, I will set forth my views on the appropriateness of capital punishment, the problems it faces, and what should be done.

First of all, there is strong evidence that the death penalty does, in fact, deter murder. A blogger who writes under the name of "Engram" has marshalled this evidence. I have nothing to add to his excellent presentation.

To me, this evidence is reason enough to keep the death penalty. However, our death penalty, as it stands today, has many problems, and these need to be addressed.

It is indisputable that innocent people have been sentenced to death on several occasions since the Supreme court allowed death sentences to resume in 1976. One example is Kirk Bloodsworth. Mr. Bloodsworth was sentenced to death based on eyewitness identification, and was later exonerated by DNA. As a result of this case and others like it, we don't sentence people to death based on eyewitness identification anymore. This is surely a step in the right direction.

The anti-death-penalty people have posted a list of exonerations here. Exonerations come in various levels of certainty. In some cases, such as Mr. Bloodsworth's, it is clear that the exonerated person is completely innocent. In others, it is not clear if the exonerated person is innocent or not. In still others, it looks like the exonerated person is probably guilty -- but not beyond a reasonable doubt, based on admissible evidence. The pro-death penalty people have a list of cases they say are in this category here. In this debate, the claims of both sides should be viewed with caution.

One topic of debate is whether any innocent person has been executed in this country since the Supreme Court decision Gregg v. Georgia (1976) allowed executions to resume. My personal belief is that this has happened. The reason is that several people have been exonerated because of the development of DNA matching technology. And if DNA matching technology had not been developed, many of these people would have had no way to exonerate themselves. I believe the rate of false convictions, pre DNA, should have been the same in cases where DNA evidence was later found to be available as in cases where it was not. Since several of the convictions where DNA was later available proved to be wrongful, it is likely that the same is true in cases without DNA evidence. And, with no DNA, the defendant may have had no way to exonerate themselves later.

There have also been many non-DNA exonerations. But this does not affect the validity of the above argument. The point is that many people who were exonerated by DNA would not have been able to do so without it. Therefore, there are almost certainly innocent people who were convicted in non-DNA cases, and the defendants were simply stuck after that.

To sum up the situation, we have the following:

(1) The death penalty almost certainly does deter murder.
(2) Innocent people have almost certainly been executed.

Note the symmetry of the above. There is evidence both in favor of and against the death penalty. In both cases, a close examination of this evidence shows it is almost certainly correct. Unfortunately, advocates on each side of this debate tend to either ignore or try to negate the opposing point.

In addition, there is the problem of death penalty appeals. These tend to be enormously expensive and time-consuming. It is not unusual for someone to spend 20 years on death row before they are finally executed. It is common for people to leave death row by dying of natural causes. These delays consume enormous resources. They are painful for the families of the victims. And they make a mockery of the death penalty itself. The Department of Justice keeps statistics on the reasons people leave death row. Here are the statistics for 2005 -- the most recent year for which they are available:

Under sentence of death at start of year: 3320
Executed: 60 (1.8%)
Suicide: 3 (0.1%)
Died of other causes: 22 (0.7%)
Left death row for other reasons (i.e, sentence commuted, guilty verdict overturned, death sentence overturned, exonerated): 109 (3.3%)
Sentenced to death during 2005: 128
Under sentence of death at end of year: 3254.

Notice that very few of the people under sentence of death during 2005 were actually executed during that year.

Looking at this another way, here is what happened to people sentenced to death during the three-year period from 1984-86, i.e, approximately 20 years before the 12/31/05 cutoff date for inclusion in the report:

Sentened to death 1984-6: 846*
Left death row:
Executed: 177 (21%)
Other death: 48 (6%)
Other or unknown reason (mostly legal reasons): 401 (47%)
Still under sentence of death as of 12/31/05: 220 (26%)

* Those who were sentenced to death during this time, had their sentences or convictions overturned, and were later resentenced to death are not included.

It is notable that only approximately 21% of those sentenced to death approximately 20 years earlier had been executed during that time. And the ones whose sentence was still under some kind of appeal outnumbered those who had been executed!

The main reason for these endless appeals is that our system does make mistakes. Innocent people do get sentenced to death. The appeals process is society's way to try to make sure those mistakes are rectified before the defendant is executed.

I would like to propose a new way to handle the death penalty. I believe that overall, it would increase the number of death sentences, thereby decreasing the murder rate. I believe it would also make the death penalty less error-prone. It is this:

The primary way to determine in a murder case whether or not the defendant should be sentenced to death should be whether or not there is overwhelming evidence of his or her guilt. Not merely proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But evidence so strong that it admits no other explanation than the defendant's guilt.

For instance, a DNA match alone would not be overwhelming evidence. The DNA analyst could be lying. Or the DNA could come from contamination. But if, for example, you have DNA, and the defendant's fingerprints are all over the gun, and the defendant kept changing his story and later confessed, that would be overwhelming evidence. The above would not, however, be overwhelming evidence if one person testified to all of it. Because that witness could be lying. Ideally, the witnesses should come from seperate organizations -- so that corruption in one organization could not allow someone to be framed.

Another example of overwhelming evidence would be if you have clear surveillance video of the defendant committing the murder. Technology in this area has advanced, but video remains difficult to fake.

Testimony from someone who is receiving a benefit from the criminal justice system (i.e, a reduced sentence for another crime) should never be considered as a part of overwhelming evidence. Because such witnesses are inherently unreliable. The same is true of eyewitness identification by anyone who did not know the defendant prior to the crime.

Additional safeguards should be put in place. In particular, both police work and analysis of forensic evidence should itself be videotaped. And these videotapes should be made available to the defense, or, even better, posted on the web. In this era of inexpensive webcams, and 470GB of CDs retailing for $25, it should be possible to do this without spending a lot of money. Furthermore, any technical work (i.e, fingerprint matches, hair or fiber matches, and DNA matches) that is going to be used in a murder trial should be subject to random, blind audits. That is, the person doing the work does not know if their work is going to be audited, and if so, by whom. The auditing process can be computerized and randomized, so the auditor could be any specialist in the same field in the country.

With all of the above safeguards, and the requirement of overwhelming evidence to sentence a defendant to death, I believe there would be very few wrongful death sentences. The reason can be found on the innocence project's website. There, they list the causes of wrongful convictions

Eyewitness Misidentification
Unreliable or Limited Science
False Confessions
Forensic Science Fraud or Misconduct
Government Misconduct
Informants or Snitches
Bad Lawyering

All of the above causes, except for bad lawyering, would be greatly reduced by the above safeguards. For instance, with police work and lab work being videotaped, government misconduct would become much riskier and more difficult, as would forensic fraud, and so on. And with the additional requirement of overwhelming evidence, it just wouldn't happen often.

But wrongful death sentences would still happen occasionally, due to bad defense lawyering, for instance. And so there should be one final safeguard. Whenever everyone is sentenced to death, there should be one automatic appeal, with a different lawyer if the defendant so chooses. And in this appeal, the lawyer should argue to a panel of three judges why the evidence is not overwhelming. They would be allowed to introduce any new evidence, without limitation. And the judges would have the power to overturn the death sentence. BUT they would be limited to some fixed percentage of their cases where they are allowed to do that. (20%, for instance).

If this appeal fails, the defendant should be allowed to appeal to the United States Supreme Court (skipping all the intermediate steps which exist today). If the Court either rules against the defendant, or decides not to grant cert, the death sentence should be carried out within a few weeks. Appeals that the manner of death would be too painful should not be allowed. This could be accomplished either by the Supreme Court ruling that, under the above system, the death penalty is no longer "unusual", or by a Constitutional amendment if for some reason the Court is unwilling to make that ruling.

I believe that in cases of premeditated murder, where there is overwhelming evidence that the defendant wanted to kill someone and did so (even if the person they killed was not the person they wanted to kill), the death sentence should be the general rule. There could be exceptions in cases where there are extenuating circumstances, such as if the victim was abusive towards the defendant (but not so abusive that the killing could be considered self defense). Other exceptions would be if the defendant was less than 18 years old, or was severely retarded. But if none of the above applies, the jury should routinely be asked to sentence the defendant to death. (And usually, they do so when they are asked). And with the above relatively brief appeals process, the sentence would typically be either overturned or carried out within a year or two.

Under this system, some people who are currently sentenced to death would not be. Scott Peterson, for instance, would likely escape the death sentence, as the case against him, while strong, was not overwhelming. John Couey and Joseph Smith would both likely have been sentenced to death, however, and Smith might well already have been executed. Additionally, may people who today are not under sentence of death would likely face this sentence.

Lastly, government agents who engage in fraud need to be routinely prosecuted. (Currently, they frequently are not.) And the charges should be more serious than they are today. If they try, but fail, to fraudulently give someone the death penalty, the charge should be attempted murder. And if, despite all the safeguards, someone is executed because of their fraud, the charge should be first degree murder.

I believe if the country adopted this system, the following would happen:

* A larger portion of murders would lead to death sentences.
* These death sentences would be less subject to error than they are today.
* Death sentences would be carried out relatively soon after the trial, making them a real deterrent. And as a result,
* The murder rate would drop.

Improving our justice system

2007-06-07T21:50:00.000-07:00

As the Duke case has shown, our justice system frequently is unable to prevent abuses. What if it were law that unless there is a compelling reason not to, every document which is subject to discovery, and every court transcript, must be posted on the web! If this were the law, dishonest lawyers and witnesses would be on notice that anyone in the world could catch them in the act. Because it would all be right out in the open for everyone to see.

The Libby defense team's blunder

2007-06-06T12:13:00.000-07:00

I think there was an argument Libby defense team would have resulted in a lower sentence. But they failed to make it in the relevant filing. It is this:

The defense should have argued to the judge that, if he should find (contrary to their contention) that Mr. Libby did commit his obstruction in relation to the outing of Ms. Plame, he should then consider just how serious of an outing was this? The guideline for this offense covers a wide spectrum of offenses with different levels of seriousness. Consider the following two situations:

1) A covert agent in Iran has his identity leaked to someone in Iran. The agent is ethnically Persian and can easily blend into that society. The agent does not know that his identity has been compromised.

2) A covert agent in Washington DC has her identity leaked to someone in the USA. This information then appears on the news. The agent realizes that she has been compromised.

Surely, outing #1 is much more serious than outing #2. Outing #1 would put the agent in great physical danger. Outing #2 does no such thing. Furthermore, in situation #1, even if the agent somehow realizes that he has been outed, and successfully escapes, his secret cover and his relationships with people in Iran have been lost. They will be difficult to reclaim. Furthermore, the CIA will have lost most of the value of someone who speaks Persian and can easily fit into Iranian society. The loss of this rare and valuable skill is devestating.

In situation #2, the agent is not put in any personal danger because she was outed. Furthermore, while the loss of a secret agent always hurts, she did not have any particularly rare skills that will be sorely missed.

Because of this contrast, the defense should have argued to the judge that he should adjust Mr. Libby's offense level downwards, to account for the fact that the outing under investigation was far less serious than other possible outings which may have been envisioned by the Sentencing Commission when it promulgated the relevant guideline.

This relative seriousness portion of this argument has the great advantage of being indisputably correct. If the defense had made it, the judge would have certainly agreed with that portion. Whether he would therefore have further agreed to adjust the offense level downwards is open to question.

Even if he had chosen not to, by making the argument, the defense would have preserved the issue for appeal. Appeals courts don't like it when someone raises an argument on appeal, having failed to make it in the district court. For this reason, raising the issue now probably wouldn't do the defense any good.

The Libby Trap

2007-06-05T19:28:00.001-07:00

Lewis Libby was sentenced today to 30 months in prison. Mr. Libby was trapped by a combination of factors, many of them not of his own making.

1) The Federal sentencing guidelines. These guidelines tell judges how much time they should impose for almost every possible Federal crime. The length of time is determined by a combination of the "offense level" (a measure of the seriousness of the crime) and the defendant's criminal history (in Mr. Libby's case, none). Judges are allowed to sentence outside the guidelines, but if they do they have to give a reason, and they risk being overturned on appeal. Frequently judges choose to sentence within the guidelines. This is what the judge did in Mr. Libby's case.

2) Tough-on-crime politics. For the most part, Americans like to treat criminals harshly. Every politician knows that being seen as soft on crime is a sure way to lose the next election. As a result, the guidelines are very harsh, even for nonviolent, white-collar offenders like Mr. Libby.

3) Politics (again). President Bush could not afford to be seen as stonewalling Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. So he ordered all of his staff to talk to the prosecutor, which is what got Mr. Libby into trouble.

4) Mr. Libby's loyalty. The Bushes value loyalty extremely highly. So the Bush administration tries to choose highly loyal people to work for it. In Mr. Libby's case, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. And Mr. Libby's loyalty worked against him at several stages of the whole affair.

A) It seems that when Dick Cheney saw Joseph Wilson's editorial, he went ballistic, and wanted to punish Mr. Wilson in any way he could. This included outing Mr. Wilson's wife. Even though this may have been a Federal crime (more on the "may have been" later), the loyal Mr. Libby agreed.

B) When Patrick Fitzgerald was picked as special prosecutor to investigate the outing of Ms. Plame, it would have been sensible for Mr. Libby to take the Monica Goodling route. Plead the fifth and resign from his job. Talk if given a favorable deal. But perhaps driven by loyalty, he didn't resign, even though President Bush had ordered all of his staff to cooperate. Which meant Mr. Libby had to talk. Mr. Libby must have known, without being told, that the loyal thing to do was to lie in order to cover up Cheney's involvement. So he did.

C) At the end of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, Mr. Libby was indicted because of his lies. At this point, Mr. Libby could still have gotten off relatively lightly. It would have required that he plead guilty and cooperate with the investigation from that point onwards. But this would have been a disloyal thing to do, so Mr. Libby instead went to trial, where he lost. Because of the way the guidelines work, this decision had a major impact on his sentence. For first offenders, the guideline sentences, in months, at various offense levels relevant to this case are as follows:

Offense Level ----- Guideline sentence (in months)
12 -------------------------- 10-16 (usually half prison and half home detention)
14 -------------------------- 15-21 (prison)
16 -------------------------- 21-27 (prison)
19 -------------------------- 30-37 (prison)

Now the base offense level for perjury and obstruction of justice is 14. But if that perjury or obstruction of justice occurs during the investigation of a more serious crime, the offense level is instead 6 less than the level for the crime being investigated, if that is more than 14. This is called a "cross reference". Because outing a covert agent has offense level 25 (or 30 in some cases, but not Mr. Libby's), that meant Mr. Libby's offense level under the cross reference was level 19. And the judge gave him a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range, which is a common choice for Federal judges to make.

If Mr. Libby had chosen to plead guilty, he could have gotten a 2-3 level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Basically, the government feels that people who admit their crimes are less culpable than those who are convicted at trial. The reduction is 2 levels if you started out at level 15 or below, and 3 levels if you started out at level 16 or higher. So if he had plead guilty, Mr. Libby at worst would have been at level 19-3=16, with a likely 21-month sentence.

But probably he could have gotten lower than that. One of the dirty little secrets of the Federal system is that if you plead guilty, often the prosecutor will overlook some of your conduct. In this case, it is entirely possible that by pleading guilty, Mr. Libby could have gotten Mr. Fitzgerald to agree for purposes of sentencing to ignore the fact that Mr. Libby's crime was in relation to the outing of an agent. If this had happened, then Mr. Libby would have started at level 14, gotten 2 levels off for acceptance of responsibility, putting him at level 12, with a probable 10-month split sentence (the same sentence Martha Stewart got).

It gets even better. By pleading guilty, and agreeing to cooperate with Mr. Fitzgerald (who would then have gone after Vice President Cheney), Mr. Libby could have gotten a further reduction for "substantial assistance" to the prosecutor. The size of substantial assistance reductions is difficult to predict. But it is perfectly realistic that this could have gotten Mr. Libby's sentence down to a few months of home dentention, possibly with a month in prison tacked on, or even down to straight probation, probably with some community service. But it would have been a very disloyal thing for Mr. Libby to do.

Some people think Mr. Libby's loyalty is admirable. Others think it is wrong, because he may have been protecting someone who committed a crime. But it is something our criminal justice system treats very harshly.

So why do I keep using the word "may" in relation to a criminal offense for outing Miss Plame? This has to do with a little-known fact about our sentencing system. In order to be convicted of a crime, your guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high standard. Because of it, criminal cases that are only "probable" do not go to trial. But once you are convicted of one crime (with proof beyond a reasonable doubt), the judge can impose a sentence for other crimes, if he believes "by a preponderance of the evidence" that you are guilty. Basically, this means he thinks you are probably guilty of the additional crimes. This is what happened to Mr. Libby. Mr. Fitzgerald maintained during the trial that Mr. Libby was being presecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice, not for outing Ms. Plame. But after the trial, he argued that, for purposes of sentencing, Mr. Libby should be treated as an accessory after the fact to the outing of Ms. Plame. But he never proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ms. Plame was ever intentionally outed! This is not an empty question. For one thing, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Plame's status was in fact covert. But because of the way our sentencing system works, Mr. Libby can be sentenced based on this crime, even though it was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime ever occurred!

5) The last thing that worked against Mr. Libby was his fame. In a less well-known case, the judge might have been persuaded by the arguments for leniency that were advanced in the letters he received. Or the prosecutor might not have argued as strongly for the cross reference which raised Mr. Libby's offense level from 14 to 19. Or the judge might not have agreed to it. But in famous cases, both prosecutors and judges typically feel they need to be harsh. This is because they feel our society will be more law-abiding if people see famous criminals being treated harshly.

The outcome of all this is that Mr. Libby ended up with a harsh 30 month sentence. One can argue whether or not it is reasonable that someone whose only crime is lying should spend that long in jail. But the combination of our sentencing system, our politics, Vice President Cheney's apparent (though unproven) conduct, and Mr. Libby's loyalty drove the system inexorably towards this outcome.

Incidentally, a 33=month sentence for obstruction of justice is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court The case is United States vs. Rita. The Court is expected to rule soon. And their ruling will probably have an impact on Mr. Libby's appeals.

Letter to many Durham Police Officers

2007-06-03T10:31:00.000-07:00

The names of many important figures within the Durham Police Department can be found here. It is frankly a little late for any of them to start talking honestly about the case. But late, I think, would be better than never. So I'm sending many of them this letter:

William Jockusch
[street address omitted]
jockxxxusch@gmail.com (without the xxx)
June 3, 2007

Major B. J. Council
Chief of the Patrol Bureau
Durham Police Department
505 West Chapel Hill Street
Durham, NC 27701

Dear Major Council,

The recent report of your Chief on the Duke Lacrosse Case, and the silence of the rest of the Department, have left many Americans asking: is there one officer in the Durham Police Department with the courage to tell the country the truth about what happened?

I realize that speaking the truth could be personally and professionally very painful for you. You would face scorn from many of your colleagues, and you would certainly anger your Chief. You might even have to leave your job. Furthermore, even without these consequences, the truth itself is a painful thing to face, and speaking it would be painful on a personal level.

However, I also believe that, because this case has received so much national attention, the truth will come out eventually. That pain is going to have to be faced, one way or another. And I believe that in the long run, it will be better for everyone if someone inside your Department has the courage to bring it out.

Furthermore, although it would be painful, and could cost you your job, there are benefits that could come to you for speaking out. I would point you to the example of Sherron Watkins of Enron, who spoke the truth to CEO Ken Lay. Afterwards, Ms. Watkins could not find a job at a major corporation. However, she was also later asked to testify to Congress about her experiences, and she received a warm welcome there. She was written up favorably in Time magazine, and was also written about several times in Fortune (though they did criticize her for failing to take her concerns public before the scandal broke). Last year she was interviewed on BBC. She also wrote a book about her experiences, and she now runs a consulting firm. So, although speaking the truth about Enron carried considerable costs for her, it also conferred her great benefits.

You might ask yourself: if I speak the truth and lose my job, will it do any good? Will I no longer be able to fight crime? Will I be giving up everything I have lived for? My answer is: put yourself in the position of an ordinary juror in an ordinary criminal case. You hear testimony from a police officer. Do you believe it? I submit to you that, if that juror has been following this case, as many Americans have, the police officer (and, for that matter, the prosecutor), will have poor credibility. The juror might still believe them, but it will be more difficult to do so. And, if the jurors don’t believe the prosecutor or the police, a criminal could go free.

Speaking out now will not undo the damage that has been done. But if you do so, that juror will remember that there was at least one police officer who was honest. An officer who was unafraid to speak the painful truth, and to take the heat for doing so.

Sincerely,

William Jockusch

A Good Quota

2007-06-02T01:34:00.001-07:00

KC Johnson has done us all a great favor by bringing to light the endless deceptions of Mike Nifong, the Durham Police, and many of the Duke Faculty. The Durham City council has now voted to establish a committee to investigate the actions of the police during the affair. They also agreed on a quota system to ensure that the committee has six men and six women, as well as six African Americans and six Caucasians.

Mr. Johnson has complained about the quota system. For once, I think he is wrong. In general I agree with Mr. Johnson that quotas are a bad idea. But what is this committee going to do? If it is honest, it is going to tell Durham, which is half black, and half female, that the police engaged in highly questionable conduct to pander to its black and female voters. I think it is crucial that the committee's report be believed. And judging by the history of this, I think Durham's black population will be much more likely to believe the committee's report if there are a lot of black people on the committee. The same goes for Durham's female population.

Fair minded people can already see perfectly clearly what happened. But the whole case makes it painfully obvious that lots of folks in Durham are not fair minded. Some of them can never be reached. But others can, and for the purpose of reaching these people, the makeup of the committee is brilliant.

I do have one concern with the council's plan. I don't think a committee is the best structure for a group of people to conduct any investigation. I think an investigation should be organized more like a dictatorship than a democracy. That is, an investigation should have one leader, and everyone else should answer to that person. This is the most effective way to conduct an investigation. That said, in this situation, credibility concerns may trump efficiency, and for purposes of credibility, the committee probably is best.

How you can help

2007-05-31T10:12:00.000-07:00

This morning I received an Email. He doesn't say, but the author sounds like a Duke alum. He asks:

Keep it civil and to the point and I think that some pressure on Duke will start to show some yield.

Is there a way for alums and other supporters to show support for the effort. I am sickened by the lack of response from the admin to the behavoir of the faculty.

I'm answering him on this blog.

Absolutely, there are many ways. You can:

* Stop giving money to Duke, and let them know the reason.

* Start writing Duke's donors yourselves. I think it is helpful to send copies of your letters to relevant individuals at Duke.

* Let people know about this blog. While it is not exclusively focussed on the Duke case, I do intend to blog about this effort again.

The main point is, a University can frequently ignore criticism. But if its sources of funding start to dry up, it will pay attention.

2007-05-30T18:28:00.000-07:00

William Jockusch
[street address omitted]
jockxxxusch@gmail.com (without the xxx -- to foil spammers)

Bill and Melinda Gates
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
PO Box 23350
Seattle, WA 98102

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gates,

I write you because your foundation is a donor to Duke University. I admire your decision to use part of your wealth to support higher education. As you know, education opens doors, and Duke has doubtless given a fine education to many deserving people.

However, Duke University needs a wake-up call. The statements of many of its faculty during the recent Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax have been outrageous. I quote a sampling of the worst Duke faculty statements in Appendix 1. These statements have been repeatedly and fiercely criticized in blogs and news reports, but the faculty in question just don't get it. Typically, they are defiant, refuse to apologize, and insist that they are in the right, and the lacrosse team and blogs are somehow wrong. This continues right up to the present. Yet Duke has failed to take any action against these faculty, who include both a large number of professors, and even Duke’s own Dean of the Social Sciences.

I believe it is long past time for Duke to fire most of the faculty quoted in the appendix. While initial outrage at the rape accusiations, before the facts were known, is understandable, it is not understandable that, now that it is known that these accusations were false, nearly all of these faculty refuse to apologize, and many seem to wish that the rape accusations were true. I believe that neither academic credentials nor tenure should excuse their lack of basic human fairness. However, Duke, even with all the criticism its facultys’ actions has engendered, has failed to take any public action. Therefore, I call on you to stop supporting Duke University, just as, I am sure, that at Microsoft you would have fired a division chief who failed to discipline misbehaving employees. It gives me no pleasure to make this request, but I believe it is necessary.

If you fail to act, and instead continue to support Duke, then, regardless of whether you intend to or not, and regardless of whether you like it or not, you are supporting statements like the ones in Appendix 1. I hope and believe you don’t want to do that. And that’s why I’m asking you to stop giving to Duke.

Sincerely,

William Jockusch

cc:
Richard Brodhead, President, Duke University
Sarah Deutsch, Dean of the Social Sciences, Duke University
Mimi O’Brien, Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations, Duke University
Posted online on 5/30/07 at http://www.greeneggsandbacon.blogspot.com/
Online version corrected on 6/3/07.

Appendix 1 – Duke faculty statements.
Comments are mine. Emphasis is from the originals.

“There can be no confidence in an administration that believes suspending a lacrosse season and removing pictures of Duke lacrosse players from a web page is a dutifully moral response to abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us” – Houston Baker, Professor of English, Duke University, in a letter dated 3/29/06, made public by Mr. Baker at the time, and currently available at
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2862/372/1600/99636/Listening_Statement_b.jpg

“At Duke University this past spring, the bodies left to the trauma of a campus brought to its knees by members of Duke University’s Lacrosse team were African American and women.”
“The culture of men’s sports . . . remains unindicted in this curious yet predictable aftermath of the men’s lacrosse teams’ documented record of demeaning, brutish, rude, and alcohol-ridden conduct.”
– both by Karla Holloway, Professor of English, Duke University, Summer 2006 issue of the Scholar and Feminist. From the context of the article, it is clear that it was written after April 11, 2006, when it was revealed that DNA tests failed to match any of the accused players to the items from the rape kit. The entire article is currently posted at
http://iambecauseweare.wordpress.com/2006/09/18/duke-professor-karla-holloway-on-the-aftermath-of-the-lacrosse-incident/

“The decision by the university to readmit the students . . .is a clear use of corporate power, and a breach, I think, of ethical citizenship.” – Holloway, resigning from a campus committee to investigate race relations. The decision Ms. Holloway refers to was made public on 1/3/2007, after the accuser had changed her timeline for the attack, and said she was no longer sure she had been raped. Ms. Holloway’s letter is quoted at
http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/printer_6857.shtml.

“Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday. They know that it isn’t just Duke, it isn’t everybody, and it isn’t just individuals making this disaster.
But it is a disaster nonetheless.
These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves.” -- full-page ad in the Duke Chronicle, signed by 88 faculty, including Sarah [aka Sally] Deutsch, who is currently Dean of the Social Sciences at Duke. The list of signers was formerly posted on Duke’s African and African American Studies website, but has since been removed from there. The full ad is currently available at http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2862/372/1600/99636/Listening_Statement_b.jpg.
The list of signers is currently available at
http://listening.nfshost.com/supporters.pdf.

“There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character. We reject all of these.” – 87 Duke faculty, including many of the original 88, in a letter posted January 16, 2007, and available at
http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/.

“These three players, an entire team, a team with an unsavory, [unclear] history. The history of the lacrosse team is the history of being inhospitable. The history of being bad neighbors to the Durham community. At the heart of the lacrosse team’s behavior is the racist history of the South”
-- Grant Farred, Professor of Literature, Duke University, in a talk given at Williams College, on April 30, 2007.
This was after the April 12, 2007 announcement by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper that “we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges”.
The talk is quoted online at http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/05/friday-with-farred.html
The post contains what appear to have been audio links to Professor Farred’s recorded voice, but the links currently do not work.

Appendix 2

Description by Ralph Luker of an encounter with Ms. Deutsch at a May, 2007 conference of the Labor and Working Class History Association.

Sally Deutsch, who is one of "the Duke 88", seemed to think that I should know better than to be found blogging with KC Johnson. She bristled noticeably when I said that, after all, he'd turned out to be correct about the lacrosse case. "You mean about the charges being dropped? she asked. I started to say: "No. Read my lips: ‘There was no rape.'" But the hairs were already standing up from the back of her neck up over to her eyebrows and her eyes were flashing. It's a good thing that KC and I are not looking for a job at Duke. Professor Deutsch has just moved from chairing Duke's history department to dean of the college of arts and sciences.

Mr. Luker’s statement is posted online at http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/39128.html.
My comment is that if, as Mr. Luker’s statement makes it appear, Ms. Deutsch would not want to hire someone who loudly and publically says there was no rape, then Duke should not employ Ms. Deutsch, and particularly not in a position where she has great influence over hiring decisions.

Appendix 3

A widely-read blog which has continually taken issue with Duke faculty statements. The purpose of this appendix is to show that both Duke and its faculty have had fair warning about the nature of the facultys’ conduct.

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

Appendix 4

News reports which have taken issue with Duke faculty conduct around the case. Unfortunately, much of this criticism is couched in terms of denouncing “leftist faculty”, rather than denouncing faculty who are just plain wrong. However, like the previous appendix, it shows that both Duke and its faculty have had fair warning.

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/02/16/Columns/Faculty.Should.Stand.By.Its.Students-2725499-page2.shtml
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/a_gutless_lynch_mob.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2007/01/the_missing_duke_outrage.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/190uejex.asp?pg=2
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/onpoint/archives/2007/04/carroll_dukes_sorry_faculty.html#more
http://www.examiner.com/a-680233~When_will_Duke_apologize_.html

Hitting Duke where it hurts

2007-05-30T01:00:00.000-07:00

The disgraceful actions of many Duke faculty, and even of the Dean of Social Sciences at Duke,
have been documented all over the place. Even when it was obvious to any sensible observer that the players were innocent, the guilty faculty typically refused to apologize. This behavior continues even today, after the North Carolina Attorney General said in no uncertain terms that the players were innocent. Yet Duke has failed to take any public action against the guilty faculty. I believe that the actions of these faculty demonstrate such a deep lack of fundamental fairness that the proper solution is to fire them, tenure or no tenure.

Duke, however, has taken no action against even one of the guilty faculty. This is even true in cases where the faculty in question appear to also be guilty of other conduct which ought to be sufficient grounds for dismissal.

Duke needs a wake up call. And the way to give them one is to get nasty. For this reason, I am going to start a letter-writing campaign to Duke's donors. I will ask them to stop giving money to Duke, and to tell Duke that its failure to discipline its faculty is the reason. Some might object that it is wrong to take an action which would hurt Duke, which surely has given a fine education to many deserving people. I disagree. When an institution strays too far from fundamental fairness, and fails to take dramatic, and planly necessary, action to correct itself, even after the problem is pointed out to it from many quarters, the time for tough love has arrived.

The first letter will be addressed to Bill Gates. I hope to post it soon.

Arizona finally executes murderer after 20 years

2007-05-23T23:52:00.000-07:00

Robert Comer was executed today, 20 years after murdering Larry Pritchard, and raping another woman in front of her boyfriend. Mr. Comer decided in the year 2000 that he wanted to give up his appeals and die. It took him 7 hears to persuade the courts that he was competent to make that decision.

I believe that the death penalty is correct for the likes of Mr. Comer, and it should be done quickly. I believe that we should limit it to cases where evidence of guilt is overwhelming. Overwhelming evidence would consist of one of the following:

1) A single item that is very difficult to fake and is absolutely convincing. Such as a videotape of the person committing the murder.

2) Two or more chains of logic, each of which independently points to the killer. At least one of these chains should consist of physical evidence.

If one of these two conditions is met, then give the person a few months to raise any doubts about their guilt that they may have failed to raise during the trial. If they can't raise significant doubt, then go ahead and execute them. And I don't care how much pain they feel.

Monica Goodling's testimony

2007-05-23T23:24:00.000-07:00

Watching parts of Ms. Goodling's testimony today, my feeling was that she was forthright and candid. Perhaps this is because she had immunity, while others who testified earlier did not.

My other feeling was that Congress are the wrong people to be doing this type of investigation. Everybody wants to score their political points, and that tends to get in the way of the search for the truth.

For instance, after months of Congressional investigations, we still don't know who put together the list of attorneys to be asked to resign, and why each name was added to the list. While primary responsibility for our continuing ignorance lies squarely on the Justice department, I can't help but feel that a professional presecutor would have gotten to the truth by now.

Monica Goodling to testify today

2007-05-23T00:09:00.000-07:00

Monica Goodling will testify before the House Judiciary Committee, starting at 10:15 this morning. She had previously plead the fifth to avoid testifying but has now been granted immunity and compelled to testify.

I am very curious just what crimes she is guilty of that led her to plead the fifth, and who,
if anyone, else was involved.

Jury nullification in Atlanta

2007-05-22T18:33:00.000-07:00

In an apparent case of jury nullification, Jeanine Echols was acquitted of 16 felony counts for lying on government forms to get her children into better schools, without paying out-of-district tuition. According to the article, residency checks revealed 197 cheaters in the last two years, but only Echols' case made it as far as a trial. Coincidentally or not, Ms. Echols appears to be African American.

Has the Bush administration politicized corruption investigations?

2007-05-22T02:13:00.000-07:00

A very interesting study suggests that the Bush Justice department is investigates allegations of corruption by Democratic officials far more frequently than it does allegations of corruption by Republican officials. Specifically, 78% of the corruption investigations they found had Democratic targets, vs. 18% for Republicans.

This isn't (yet) an open-and-shut case, but it is highly suspicious. Some natural questions:

1. As the authors themselves admit, they didn't find every investigation. They relied on search engines to come up with what they could. But if word of an investigation never reached the press, or if they missed it in their searches, we wouldn't have it.

2. When I look at the site of the people who are publicizing this study (www.epluribusmedia.org), I get the impression that they have an anti-Republican bias. So while it is entirely possible that this study gives the full story, I would not be confident that it does until the whole thing is evaluated by a more neutral source (e.g. Newsweek).

3. In light of points 1 and 2, it would be interesting if the Justice department were to release complete data on public corruption investigations and the party affiliations of their targets.

4. I wonder what the picture was under past administrations? For instance, do Democratic administrations tend to disproportionately investigate Republicans?

The rot runs deep

2007-05-20T18:07:00.000-07:00

Many people were responsible for the Duke Rape Hoax. The responsible parties include:

1) Crystal Magnum, who originated it,

2) SANE nurse Tara Levicy, who appears to have substituted her opinions for the facts in her report on the examination of Crystal Magnum

3) Durham police officer Benjamin Himan, who signed a false affidavit to obtain DNA from the players and authorize the infamous photo identification procedure that led to the infamous photo identification procedure that identified the three "suspects",

4) Durham police officer Mark Gottlieb, who conducted that procedure,

5) investigator Linwood Wilson, who appears to have helped Crystal Magnum change her story to match the then-available evidence,

4) Gottlieb (again), who produced some highly suspect typewritten notes months after certain events, and which contradicted contemporaneous notes of those events

6) Of course, Mike Nifong, who oversaw the whole case, and is by far the most culpable.

These people work for three different employers -- Duke University, the Durham Police Department, and the 14th North Carolina Prosecutorial District. Amazingly, not one of these employers has seen fit to fire their respective employees, despite their culpability in the Hoax. To the contrary:

1) Tara Levicy still works for Duke University.

2) The Durham Police Department has tried to whitewash its officers' culpability.

3) North Carolina judge Orlando Hudson, when presented with a complaint seeking Nifong's removal, chose to do nothing for the time being. Nifong is the subject of a complaint by the North Carolina bar, which will be tried in June. To date, that is the only public action taken against any perpetrator of the Hoax.

Using the Duke case to assess credibility

2007-05-16T14:10:00.000-07:00

The Duke case has the interesting benefit of allowing one to assess the credibility of various people and organizations -- especially those with a liberal point of view. Conservative organizations and people generally got this one right because their natural tendency was to
believe the defense case. So the fact that they did so doesn't tell us anything about whether they are credible or not. Assessment of their credibility will have to wait for another issue.

So, with that in mind, here are my assessments:

Susan Estrich grade: A-.

A rape victim herself, she initially followed her natural instincts and had a hard time believing the defense. However, as the facts came out, she at first saw that Mike Nifong had mishandled the press, then that he had not followed proper legal procedure, then that he was completely out of control and had lost his moral compass, and at last that he was a liar who has used a very confused woman.

The only quibble I have with Ms. Estrich is that I believe each of these points was clear long before she made it. So it took a long time for the facts to overwhelm her inner predispositions. However, it is greatly to her credit that she eventually allowed them to do so.

The New York Times grade: F

The New York Times gave the worst reporting of the case. It's transparently misleading front-page August 2006 article has been torn to shreds in blog after blog after blog after blog, and yet the Times had the gall to claim that they "generally fairly reported both sides". I guess that 5700-word news article just didn't have space to mention that there was a time-stamped photo of one of the "suspects" at another location when he was supposedly comitting the crime.

Hillary Clinton grade: C

As best I can tell, Clinton has not mentioned the case at all. Perhaps she fears that attacking Nifong would offend some of her supporters, while mentioning the case without doing so would definitely offend many other people.

Barack Obama grade: A

Apparently not afraid of what feathers he might ruffle, Obama has had the courage to state the obvious.

Captain Sarvis' dilemma

2007-05-15T13:01:00.000-07:00

Capt. Ed Sarvis, who heads up internal affairs and professional standards at the Durham Police Department, is in a difficult position. If he says there was wrongdoing by the police, he is being insubordinate to his chief who, judging by the official report, appears to want to sweep all problems under the rug. However, if he does not say this, I believe he is failing in his duty to make sure the Durham Police Force is honest. I thought it would be interesting to look at other people who have faced similar dilemmas but chosen to speak up.

Sherron Watkins of Enron was willing to write a letter to CEO Ken Lay that the company's accounting was not right. At the time, her acts surely brought her a chilly reception from Mr. Lay and from other people she worked with. But later, Time Magazine named her
Person of the Week, and she was able to write a book about her experiences. She was also criticized because, although she did bring up her concerns internally, she failed to take them public until after the Enron scandal broke. The publicity associated with her letter to Mr. Lay did give her many speaking engagements. And her fate was far better than that of Mr. Lay, who was convicted of six counts of fraud and conspiracy for his role in the scandal, but died of a heart attack before he could begin serving his sentence.

Former Detroit deputy chief Gary Brown investigated alleged wrongdoing by Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his security detail. For doing his job, Brown's reward was that he was fired. Brown sued, charging wrongful termination, and is now locked in a lengthy court battle with the Mayor.

History's most famous whistleblower was Winston Churchill. Almost alone among his contemporaries, he recognized the threat of Nazi Germany as early as 1933. He fought tirelessly for higher British military spending, and was rewarded by political isolation. However, shortly after history proved Churchill to be alarmingly correct about Hitler, Churchill became Prime Minister, and oversaw the British efforts for the rest of the war.

It is clear that in each of these cases, the whistleblower's life initially became more difficult as a result of his or her whistleblowing. I imagine these type of considerations are driving Capt. Sarvis' decision to support his chief. However, in two of the above cases, the whistleblower's efforts were rewarded in the long run. The exception is Gary Brown, who may be rewarded eventually, but for the time being is locked in a doubtless difficult and frustrating court battle.

Conversation with Capt. Ed Sarvis of the Durham Police

2007-05-15T10:13:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I put in a phone call to Capt. Ed Sarvis, who is in charge of professional standards and internal affairs at the Durham Police Department. He wasn't in, so I left a message, saying I had some concerns about the Department's handling of the case that I wanted to discuss with him. To my surprise and delight, he did call me back today, and we discussed the matter at length. He was of the opinion that the police handled the case just fine. This was disappointing, but I was encouraged that he was willing to discuss the matter at length with someone who held a different view.

Durham Police Report

2007-05-13T14:41:00.000-07:00

The Durham Police have issued their official report on their handling of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax. As you may remember, this is the case where despite overwhelming evidence of innocence, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong charged Duke students and Lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty, and David Evans with rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping, and the legal battle lasted for over a year. Unsurprisingly, the police report does not fault any of the police conduct in the case. One claim in the report:

"Investigators made consistent attempts and were always interested in obtaining exculpatory information. Claims that have been made to the contrary are simply unfounded."

Oh really? For example, did the investigators attempt to check out the exculpatory information that was broadcast on 60 Minutes? Did they follow up on the exculpatory leads that were broadcast on ABC News? Did they check out the exculpatory leads in the Wikipedia article on the case? Did they try the standard investigative technique of contacting the cell phone service provider for Reade Seligmann to see if they might have any evidence, exculpatory or otherwise? Did they ever ask Crystal Magnum about the endless inconsistencies in her various stories about the "attack"? Did they fail to notice the exculpatory results of the prosecution's DNA tests? Did they check out the exculpatory story of cabbie Moez Elmostafa, when they were arresting him on a trumped up shoplifting charge? Did they check out the endless exculpatory evidence presented in KC Johnson's Blog? Did they notice the exculpatory fact, mentioned in the report itself, that Crystal Magnum couldn't identify any suspects on her first six attempts to do so? Did they ever interview Julie Manly, who performed the rape exam on Crystal Magnum, to see if she might have any exculpatory information? Did they try a google search on "Duke Rape", to see if that might bring up any exculpatory hits?

The report spends two pages talking about supposed police attempts to obtain exculpatory evidence. But it does not mention any police attempt to check out these obvious exculpatory leads.