Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Talking Points Can Go Stale Very Quickly

Posted on July 7, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

For a good laugh, compare today's effort by William Safire, Body Politic Will Reject 'Charisma Transplant', in which he attacks Kerry's choice of Edwards as safe, instead of making the courageous choice of picking that nice, boring Mr. Gephardt (whom of course the Republicans had been salivating about attacking). Apparently Cheney was a “pick of confidence” because he balanced Bush's incapacities on foreign policy. Kerry not having policy incapacities, he foolishly selects someone exciting, who helps him win an election. What a boring loser.

Now look at E.J. Dionne's column on why Edwards is The Right Choice and the Gep would have been a mistake:

Republicans were in a foul mood because Kerry's choice of Edwards as his running mate muddied up all the story lines they were itching to trot out. To understand why Edwards was the best choice for Kerry, consider what the Republicans (and, yes, the media) would have said if the nod had gone instead to Rep. Richard Gephardt, the clear runner-up in the vice presidential stakes.

Kerry would have been described as “insecure” at the prospect of standing next to the “charismatic” and “populist” Edwards. Fearing being “upstaged” by the equally ambitious Edwards, Kerry would have been accused of making the “obvious,” “uninspired” and “comfortable” choice. Gephardt's experience would have been trotted out to turn him into the “tired” face of the “old” Democratic Party. It would also have been said that Kerry, the “elitist Massachusetts liberal,” had “written off” the South and rural America.

Could it be that Safire had the Gep column all written, and then just reused as much as he could?

The Dionne column is full of good stuff, including this jem:

When you hear Republicans disparage Sen. John Edwards's lack of experience, remember the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, spoken to George W. Bush at a debate on Dec. 6, 1999.

“You've been a great governor,” Hatch declared of his rival for the Republican presidential nomination. “My only problem with you, governor, is that you've only had four and going into your fifth year of governorship… . Frankly, I really believe that you need more experience before you become president of the United States. That's why I'm thinking of you as a vice presidential candidate.”

Which is exactly what Edwards was chosen for yesterday.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 6 Comments

War On Foreign Journalists Continues

Posted on July 7, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

The United States is telling foreign journalists they have to go home to renew their passports.

It looks as though a lot of foreign journalists will have to go to through some new, tougher hoops to report on the United States.

Citing homeland security issues, the State Department will no longer allow foreign journalists visiting the U.S. or stationed here semi-permanently to easily renew their Visa's in-country.

That means 20,000 journalists who have been able to renew their visas without too much hassle will now be faced with a lot of additional time—from 4-6 weeks to up to six months—and some extra expense to renew them.

As of July 16, holders of class I Visas (foreign media representatives), as well as several other classes of nonimmigrant visas, will be required to reapply at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad when those visas expire.

I've mentioned before that the US is treating foreign reporters badly. No doubt many of them will attribute this latest madness to the mauling that Bush got from an Irish interviewer.

In fact, however, it's a logical outgrowth of the requirement for biometric passports a requirement that is going to kill the Florida tourist industry in an election year unless Congress delays it.

As a closing thought, have a look at this great post by Alex Halavais in which he proposes we post appropriate notices at the border:

The Enemy is Journalism

Posted in National Security | Comments Off on War On Foreign Journalists Continues

Calming the Troops…Or Propaganda?

Posted on July 6, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

A reader sent me something interesting: It seems that just before the July 4th holidays, everyone at Andrews Air Force Base — including the local contingent of the Air National Guard — was sent a power point file of talking points about the Iraq War and the Abu Ghraib scandal produced by the Office of the Assistant Secretary Of Defense for Legislative Affairs.

The two-pager includes some information about what the public can do to support the troops, but the main thrust of it is how important intelligence is to the war effort…

The United States is at war. In the Global War on Terror, the most important weapon in our arsenal is intelligence. Because of the intelligence gathered from interrogations we have thwarted enemy attacks and saved American lives.

… how important interrogations are to intelligence…

  • Intelligence gathered from detainee interrogations contribute to Coalition success in the Global War on Terror.
    • Interrogations played a key role in the capture of Saddam Hussein.
    • Interrogations are critical to determining how foreign fighters get into Fallujah and Ar Ramadi.
    • Interrogations are critical to discovering improvised explosive devices targeted at Coalition force

… and how much the Bush administration wanted and wants everything to be humane…

  • The President directed in February 2002 that all persons in U.S. custody are to be treated humanely. This decision was made by the President and it is in accordance with all applicable national and international laws.
    • The so-called “torture memo” was a speculative work that explored the limits of detainee treatment under U.S. and international law. It was not a policy recommendation.
      DoD policy requires that all interrogation practices be humane.

Of course anything to the contrary is just bad apples:

  • The actions of the soldiers in the Abu Graib photographs were perpetrated by a small number of U.S. military, they were also brought to light by the honorable and responsible actions of other military personnel.
  • Eight Iraq-related detention lines of inquiry have been ordered by DoD.
  • At least seven soldiers now face or may soon face criminal charges. Three of them have been preferred for court martial

    • Charges include dereliction of duty, conspiracy to maltreat subordinates, maltreatment of subordinates, indecent acts, and battery.

    • Additionally, two noncommissioned officers were charged with aggravated assault.

  • Since the onset of the war in Iraq, the United States government has recognized and made clear that the Geneva Convention applies to our activities in Iraq. General Sanchez has instructed the forces under his command of that obligation.
  • Orders placing Abu Ghraib under the tactical control of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade in no way changed the rules governing the conduct of the military police and military intelligence personnel in Iraq with respect to the laws of war or the Geneva Convention.
  • Contractors at the prison were primarily used for translation, interpretation, and interrogation purposes. Felony criminal sanctions for any crimes a defense contractor may commit are available under U.S. Federal law.

Repeat, we are NOT guilty of torture:

  • Development and approval of interrogation techniques were done in a deliberate manner with strict legal and policy review to ensure the protection of detainees, our institutions and our troops responsible for carrying out those operations.
  • Throughout this conflict the procedures have been constantly reviewed and modified when deemed necessary and appropriate.
  • The implication that the United States government has, in one way or another, ordered, permitted, or tolerated torture is simply not true.
  • Individuals who have abused the trust and confidence placed in them, regardless of rank or position, will be held accountable

Leaving aside the question of why the Pentagon uses Powerpoint for two pages of crowded three-column text, one might ask why the troops are getting this message, and why just before a weekend in which many of them would either be going home or having other July 4th related contact with the public.

In normal times, one might look at this document, complete with the centered and inset quote from a Bush Presidential directive, and say that it’s just normal to give the troops information about issues that would obviously be of concern to them. (Although in fact I have no idea how common this is — not very, I’d imagine?) It’s surely a sign of the times that at least some of the recipients saw it as a clumsy way to prime the recipients with pro-administration propaganda.

Read it for yourself and decide. In case the original powerpoint doesn’t work, I’ve converted it to a much larger .pdf version, but it may be harder to read.

Posted in Iraq Atrocities | 14 Comments

Presidential Timber

Posted on July 6, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Among all the political qualities needed for a Vice-Presidential nominee (does he balance the ticket? carry a key state? have no skeletons?), one thing that gets mentioned insufficiently often is whether the candidate has the qualities that might make a good President. Veeps frequently end up either stepping in for the boss, or running on their own, so it matters to the country that they be of Presidential caliber.

History is littered with examples of candidates, and elected Veeps, who conspicuously lacked this quality: Sipro Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle Quail would surely be consensus choices. Many might argue Cheney belongs in this group, albeit for very different reasons.

Ex ante prediction about who will be a good President is a very imperfect science. On the day he was elected Vice-President there would have been something of a consensus that Truman lacked the necessary qualities (“to err is Truman” went the slogan), and yet Truman, flawed as he was, looks better and better in hindsight.

What I like best about John Edwards is that I think he has the making of a great President. He's a little green, especially about foreign policy, and a little too protectionist on trade, but a good eight years as veep could season him to perfection.

In picking Edwards, Kerry has put statesmanship over personal friendship (with Gephardt). He's also shown an ability to manage the media (whipping them into a frenzy for weeks), and to keep a secret. That looks Presidential right now.

Update: This New York Post 'Exclusive' is pretty funny.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 6 Comments

Intelligence: the Raw and the Cooked

Posted on July 6, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

It makes a great headline, C.I.A. Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, U.S. Officials Say, and the first paragraph is a powerful one:

The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials.

The New York Times article, however, fails to mention one little thing, and that failure makes me slightly skeptical about the rest. The interviews with the relatives of Iraqi scientists are so-called 'raw intelligence'; the CIA is not expected to give policy makers the text of every interview it conducts, nor even mention them all. It's supposed to triage, draw conclusions, weigh and summarize…fairly, without 'cooking' the results. Indeed, it's precisely the failure to distinguish between raw intelligence and nuanced thinking that is the chief rap against Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, and his neocon band of intelligence amateurs in the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans.

That said, I don't exclude the possibility that the CIA cooked the reports it fed higher-ups. And if it did, it's possible that the reason was incompetence, or it may have been pressure from the White House. But the existence of contrary raw intelligence, alone, is not a smoking gun—although it certainly raises questions about why the CIA chose to believe the people who lied to it.

If it turns out that the CIA's decision not to credit the people who said there were no WMD's was pivotal to the decision to go to war, does that make the Iraq War all the CIA's fault? Clearly not, since there was enormous pressure to attack Iraq from Cheney, Bush, and especially the neoconservative crazies at the Defense Department. But in light of George Tenet's quoted statement that the case for Iraqi WMD's was a 'slam dunk', it doesn't look good.

If it does turn out that the CIA got it wrong without reason, will anyone revive the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan's peacetime suggestion that we abolish the C.I.A. and start over?

Update: Talking Points Memo sees this as a cynical leak, another round in the CIA vs. White House war. I'm sure that's right. But even so, I'm not sure the CIA is covered in virtue here. In other words, sure it's an evil partisan leak. Yes, the article is poor journalism as it lacks both relevant contextual information and also any reaction from neutrals (and little from CIA partisans). But that, even plus the ample evidence of Admnistration misdeads, doesn't prove there's also nothing to worry about in how the CIA behaved.

Posted in National Security | 1 Comment

Home Network Installation: First Problem

Posted on July 5, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

I ordered, and was properly billed and invoiced for, a patch panel . It was delivered while I was away. When I opened the box, I found that I was sent a piece of metal with holes in it.

Grrrrr. Nobody at Lanshack is home today, it being a federal holiday, but tomorrow they better sort this out.

Update: While I was writing this, someone from Lanshack answered my email from this morning. It's a model of how to deal with an error:

We obviously made an error and sent you the wrong patch panels. I can ship you the correct (loaded) cat 5e patch panels on Tuesday (7/5) and they would arrive to you on Friday (7/9). Would this work for your schedule?

As for the return of the other panels; if I were to send you a UPS prepaid return label by email would you be able to print and attach it to the package and give it to a UPS driver?

I apologize for the error and any inconvenience that it may have caused you.

And it's even signed by a particular employee, in case I want to follow up.

Mistakes happen to anyone—and this is much better coping than you often see.

Posted in Adventures in Remodeling | 5 Comments