Monday, August 31, 2009

Justice or Witch Hunt? Katrina vs. Threats to your momma.


With the anniversary of the countries most devastating natural disaster of our lifetime just behind us, there has been plenty of news and commentary about post Katrina New Orleans. Four years ago the we watched the devastation unfold, safe and dry in our midwestern living rooms. Most of us made some fairly harsh judgements from our easy chairs. We listened to New Orleans Mayor, Ray race card Nagin, complain that the feds weren't doing enough, while he did just as little. We watched as the man who ran FEMA left people to fend for themselves. We saw people lying dead on sidewalks, bloated and fly blown, bobbing in fetid waters, old and young, the most vulnerable left to fend for themselves. We saw the worst of people. Cops caught on camera shopping, along with the rest of the looters. People who we wanted to pity, until we saw them packing big screen televisions through broken store windows.


Red tape and multiple government dick measuring, Nagin sat on buses instead of evacuating the people he was charged to protect. A FEMA director whose previous job experience was judging horse shows, smiling beside Bush while that famous line spilled from the Moron in Chiefs mouth, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job", or words to that effect. We can deploy an entire Battalion of Marines to foreign soil in under 48 hours, but we couldn't get food and water to people in our own country for 5 days. In my opinion, the way the Bush administration handled Katrina was the biggest failure and dereliction of duty in the eight years that Bush ran this country.


Trust me when I say, I was one of the first to blame those who stayed after being told to leave. I still believe more people could have left, could have survived, had they heeded the warnings. I still believe they shared as much if not more responsibility for their hardship those first weeks. But that's really missing the point. For every idiot who stayed behind by choice, there were children who paid for the decision they had no hand in making. Nagin blamed the feds, the feds blamed the Governor and Nagin, cover your ass was the theme of the day. So four years later, for most of us, Katrina is a distant memory. Most of us have moved on, put those eight years of the Bush administration behind us. Liberals aren't calling for heads over the New Orleans debacle. Which brings me to the real subject of this post.


Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. opened an investigation into whether CIA interrogators broke the law, and the Obama administration complied with a judge's order and released a long-secret CIA report that cataloged allegations of agency prisoner abuse. Out of all of the Bush administrations many sins, the one that seems to have people up in arms the most, are the tactics we used to get information from suspected terrorists. Human rights groups, liberals with an agenda, and a grudge, a current administration with too much on its plate already, journalists, and bloggers. They started with the military, moved to the CIA, and we all know where that road leads, Bush and Cheney. That's what this investigation is really about, breaking it off in Bush and Cheney. It's not about justice. If justice was foremost in the mind of the current administration, there would be investigations focusing on why Americans were allowed to suffer during Katrina. Nagin would be out of work, Brownie would be in jail, Bush would be busy issuing apologies. Instead we focus on the supposed rough treatment of people who would love to see our children's heads on a pike. We wring our hands over empty threats made to kill some guy in Afghanistan's mother, we rise up in self righteous indignation over pouring water in the face of a religious zealot, we hang our heads in shame because " this isn't how Americans treat their enemies". We are going to hang onto this investigation like a pit bull, we won't let go until we taste blood.


I'm watching Cheney on Fox news as I write this. He is giving a multitude of reasons why the investigation is a bad thing. Of course his biggest concern is his own ass, and politics. Make no mistake, Cheney in my opinion is the second biggest douche bag to come down the pike, Bush being the first. Carter running a not too distant third. Back to my point, I find it more than a little telling that a section of society is so wrapped up in "Getting those Guys". It doesn't smell like justice, it doesn't feel like they just want to get to the truth, it seems more like a lynch mob atmosphere. There is no doubt that Cheney and Bush made a lot of really shitty moves, they dropped the ball with more regularity than a Chiefs running back. Given that, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that CIA tactics are their biggest sin.
Today, right now, we have almost 10 percent unemployment, people who can't afford to be sick, a local murder rate that will probably be a record setter, we have plenty of problems. Why take any focus off of the major issues that plague this country with a witch hunt? If we are so concerned about the tacit violation of Human Rights , why put all of this focus on a hand full of incidents involving our known enemies, while ignoring the major human rights violations that took place during Katrina? It appears that a few brown skinned people on a different continent are more important than the brown skinned folks in New Orleans. Maybe I'm reaching here, but that's certainly how it seems on the surface. Which was a greater violation of Human rights, the way we dealt with potential terrorists, or the way we failed our own people, especially the most helpless, the elderly, infirm, and young? You tell me. I smell something, but it ain't justice.

16 comments:

  1. First off, the evac rate from the New Orleans are in the face of Katrina was 90%, which is absolutely unprecedented, and even more amazing when one considers that Nagin, aka, the Walking Id, didn't call for a mandatory evac until it was almost too damn late.

    Looking into what the CIA did in terms of trying to ferret out terrorist does speak to what happened here, in that perhaps if we had somehow demonstrated that terrorists had bombed the levees or some such thing, perhaps the recovery here would be coming along much faster than it has been:

    http://ashleymorris.typepad.com/ashley_morris_the_blog/2006/01/the_terrorists_.html

    The only things that were getting any kind of funding in terms of emergency preparedness were terrorist situations, not scenarios like the levee breaches in a major city, earthquakes in CA, or other more pedestrian disasters compared to say, a dirty bomb or a sarin gas attack. If that ain't a huge argument for getting FEMA out from under the umbrella full of holes that is Homeland Security, I don't know what is. And having the CIA investigated for its actions is a start...but only if the problems it raises get fully addressed in the here and now and we can all start to take a good hard look at the hated world police we seem to have become.

    America - fuck yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "America - fuck yeah" LA, I am shocked. You said the eff word. I think the figures I heard was more like 80 pct, still not bad numbers whatever the case may be. I don't know if I agree or disagree with what the CIA did. We don't really know if lives were saved because of it or not. I guess my concern isn't so much the investigation, but the reason behind it, and the fucked up priorities we have when confronting injustice on foreign soil while ignoring it at home. Mostly I try to avoid these bigger issues, I'm not well versed enough, and I tend to shoot from the hip. Still, it seems our outrage is controlled more by party lines in this country, than in genuine concern for right and wrong. Present company excepted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As they say down in my neck of the woods, MM, yeah you rite.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I saw the first name, confused you with another Leigh, which was why the f bomb shocked me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Still, it seems our outrage is controlled more by party lines in this country, than in genuine concern for right and wrong.

    My outrage starts at the fact that adherence to the rule of law is now treated like a partisan issue, rather than something all reasonable people recognize as one of the founding fucking principles of this nation.

    Forgive me if I sound snippy, but your take on this is painfully uninformed. If you followed this subject more closely, you'd know that there is zero chance of this investigation getting anywhere near Bush or Cheney. You'd know that Obama and most of the leadership class of the democratic party would like nothing more than for all this to go away. You'd know that people (like me) who want to see people held accountable are angry at Obama for his efforts to prevent that and for his continuation of many Bush policies in the national security arena.

    You'd know, in short, that the "agenda" of (the largely powerless) liberals pushing for accountability is not a petty grudge match, it's about defending the founding principles of the nation. A nation of laws, not men, and all that other "quaint" business so much of our leadership could live without. You can sneer at that from a wide variety of angles, but that doesn't make it a partisan witch hunt.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/25/king/index.html

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/24/ig_report/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sophia
    Dont apologize for sounding "snippy" and while you are at it, don't assume that I sneer when it comes to the constitution. While you may well believe there are no gray areas when it comes to the law, and while you may have the best of intentions, Id suggest you are being a little naive if you think a big motivator in this investigation isnt political. I'll readily admit I'm not an expert on the subject, my point was priorities and seemingly more concern for what happens on foreign soil compared to here in our own country. I'm not about to get into a debate with you over the Law, I don't pick fights I can't win. But you'll never convince me this investigation is more moral than political.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But you'll never convince me this investigation is more moral than political.

    It's not a simple moral vs. political issue. The people actually making the decisions are certainly taking immediate political ramifications into account. The non-decision makers who are pushing for investigations have a broader aim. It's not about any immediate partisan concern, it's about the health of the republic - what kind of country are we becoming when we continually let our leaders break the law and don't hold them to account for it?

    Of course political concerns are involved, but I think you've misread them. Obama would love to pretend none of this happened. Holder would love to pretend none of this happened. Neither one of them apparently feels morally obligated by their oaths to defend the constitution to do a damn thing about this. If the only pressure they were getting to investigate was from partisan scalp hunting harpies, it would be the easiest thing in the world to ignore. Which is why so much effort goes into painting the existing pressure as a partisan motivated witch hunt.

    But they can't entirely ignore the pressure, because it is nakedly apparent that long-standing laws were broken and treaty obligations were ignored. There is no serious legal argument that our own laws were not broken. The only question is if, given assorted national security blocks and evidentiary barriers, successful prosecutions can be mounted. The political pressure they face is their base, fairly, calling them lawless enablers.

    But the countervailing political pressure to sweep the whole matter under the rug is obviously much stronger. That's why you've got an investigation narrowly targeting bottom rung guys, as if we were dealing with bad apples, rather than targeting the entire ugly enterprise.

    Your "foreign soil" point seems to be missing the issue. A nation that tortures is sliding towards barbarism. Opponents of torture don't think the ill effects of a pro-torture policy can be contained to the discrete location of the torture.

    In terms of priorities, I doubt you'll find many opponents of torture who think the failures in responding to Katrina should be ignored. Those failures just don't require an independent prosecutor to deal with.

    You talk about taking focus away from what are more important issues, but Holder didn't impanel the entire nation as a grand jury to hear evidence on the issue. A properly conducted investigation, absent Ken Starr-style leaks, isn't going to require the nation's constant attention and input.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First, on Katrina. It was a travesty. Plenty of blame to spread around. I largely agree with MM.

    Now, with regard to the Holder investigation, I hope the far left is happy now. They may have won the battle, but I'm afraid they're going to lose the war. Their blood lust for Bush/Cheney is so deep rooted, they'd sacrifice the 2010 elections, Obama's popularity, and maybe even the national security of this country just to get their revenge. Except for national security, I'd be cheering, but no good can come of this because of the national security implications, the demoralization of the CIA, etc.

    All this chatter about the rule of law amuses me. The rule of law depends on what laws the liberals believe are sacred and which they tend to ignore, such as those associated with illegal immigration. The fact is all laws are open to interpretation, always have been and always will be. The Holder decision was a political choice not unlike the political choices made by his Republican predecessors.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The rule of law depends on what laws the liberals believe are sacred and which they tend to ignore, such as those associated with illegal immigration

    No. The rule of law is designed to avoid arbitrary and capricious outcomes. You know what the law is, the consequences for violating it, and you can determine your actions in light of that information. Adherence to the rule of law is a separate issue than whether or not the existing laws (and their application) are just or proper. Adherence to the rule of law is what caused Al Gore to concede the election, not Gore being convinced that it was a fair outcome.

    Your choice of immigration as an illustration is amusing. Torture is a federal crime and forbidden by our treaty obligations. An undocumented resident is in violation of the civil code, not criminal. Being an "illegal" immigrant is not a crime. And it's silly to pretend this country isn't full of republican business interests that don't want to see immigration law strictly enforced.

    The fact is all laws are open to interpretation, always have been and always will be.

    Um, sure. Every law is open to being stupidly interpreted. Not all laws have multiple reasonable and conflicting interpretations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AhneedmahdinnerpantsMonday, August 31, 2009

    Go get 'em Sophia!

    The Gal's livening up the discourse round these parts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. She does at that. glad to have her around, even when she starts throwing 40 dollar words at me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sophia said, "Your choice of immigration as an illustration is amusing. Torture is a federal crime and forbidden by our treaty obligations. An undocumented resident is in violation of the civil code, not criminal. Being an "illegal" immigrant is not a crime. And it's silly to pretend this country isn't full of republican business interests that don't want to see immigration law strictly enforced."

    I said, "The rule of law depends on what LAWS the liberals believe are sacred and which they tend to ignore, SUCH AS THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION." (bold added). I never said being an illegal immigrant is a crime nor did I say anything (silly or not) about business interests. I was speaking of immigration law in general, which YOU chose to specifically interpret in your own interests, which is exactly my point. (and, by the way, I am well aware of the differences in entering this country vs being in it).

    What was and is considered violation of torture laws under Bush vs Obama is obviously different. The "crimes" that were committed during the Bush administration were dealt with during Bush's administration. Holder has now decided to challenge those decisions based on his own interpretation and policitcal interests. To me, that's the very definition of what is arbitrary and capricious.

    ReplyDelete
  13. L. A. Little checking in!!! This is a subject that hits close to home with me. At various times in my life I've had the honor of being a Quarter Rat down in NOLA. The weekend before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans I was down in Crawford, Texas, at Camp Casey, protesting Bush & Cheney's illegal actions all over the world. Coming home, somebody in Fort Worth said, "I hope you've been to Mardi Gras!" I said, "Why?" and he said, "'Cause New Orleans about to go under!"

    So I'd just as soon lock them all up, and I'm one who often gets accused of being "soft on crime." I'd like to see the entire Bush Administration behind bars for the rest of their lives, including "Brownie", Harriet Myers, and especially Alberto Gonzales.

    Because I was lectured from childhood that torture is an absolute evil. And because Katrina shamed and disgraced our nation more than I ever thought was possible.

    Why shouldn't they be prosecuted for the lot of it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. What a hoot! Another Leigh Ann out and about; I'm one, too.

    And as for the spot where immigration and Katrina intersect, pick up "Zeitoun" by Dave Eggers sometime. Zeitoun A. contractor signs were all over town well before the storm - he runs a good business - and he has been a U.S. citizen for a couple of decades now. He stayed during the storm to keep an eye on the properties he owned and the warehouse in which his business records, tools and supplies were stored...but about a week into the shiznit down here, he disappeared down a rabbit hole in which the authorities assumed he was a terrorist because he was a Syrian-American and used that assumption, as well as the state of suspended due process, to keep him nearly indefinitely in a prison outside the city. His wife couldn't get any information on his whereabouts from the government AT ALL. The way she found out where he was was from a minister passing out bibles to inmates at the prison where he was being held - a minister who just happened to call the cell number he'd been given by this inmate who was refused medical care, given pork products to eat regularly that he refused because it was forbidden food to him, and repeatedly taunted by his jailers as "Taliban" and "al-Qaeda" when there was absolutely no basis in fact for such assumptions.

    Immigration and the war on terror having nothing to do with the events of 8-29-05? I beg to differ.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Okay, here's a case where both liberals and conservatives are wrong.
    First, you can't defend your side's violation of the law by saying the other side broke the law, too. Two wrongs don't make a right. That's an old rule from kindergarten, and it seems to have been forgotten by the grown adults here. If it's wrong, then it's wrong and should be punished no matter what the other side got away with. End of story.
    Second, you can't rationalize law breaking by splitting hairs between civil and criminal law. It's still law breaking, no matter which side of the law book it falls under.
    Third, you can't use the argument that the ends justify the law-breaking means. The point of law is that you always adhere to it, even if it's inconvenient to your cause. Once you start down the road of compromise by deciding it's okay to ignore one law or another to get the ends you want, then you might as well start chucking the whole bill of rights at some point, because that's where you're heading.
    Finally, I have to ask a simple question. If the Republicans champion stopping illegal immigration, why didn't they ever stop it when they controlled both the White House and the Congress from 2001 through 2006? And while we're at it, why didn't they make abortion illegal and reduce government spending? I would think it's pretty hard to support the GOP when they take your campaign donations and your vote, and then they don't do anything to advance the issues you want addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. At least 100,000 in New Orleans did not own or have access to a car, possibly closer to 200,000. There aren't enough buses to move that many people, and people who talk about buses simply haven't thought through the mechanics of the process (who drives the buses? where do the buses drive to? if you can't force the regular busdrivers to stay behind and drive the buses (and you really can't), do you just give the keys to anybody who shows up?).

    You simply can't evacuate a city of that size with 36 hours notice. It's amazing that as many people got out as they did, and it's a miracle thousands more didn't die.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.