Before it gets too far from Memorial Day, I wanted to tell you about Alberto J. Mora, the recently retired general counsel of the Navy. He was profiled in the New Yorker magazine back in February. It’s a very detailed and fairly shocking article describing the long and lonely battle he fought to stop th Bush administration’s policies on torture and cruelty. The article is shocking because it quite plainly reveals that these policies were conceived at the highest levels of government, and are hardly just the actions of the few, low-ranking “bad apples” who’ve been convicted of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib (as we’ve been told by the mainstream press). The article chronicles his many attempts to turn these polices around, but he was defeated at almost every turn. Here’s one aspect of the story:
…One document, which is marked “secret” but is not classified, is a twenty-two-page memo written by Mora. It shows that three years ago Mora tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects.
The memo… reveals that Mora’s criticisms of Administration policy were unequivocal, wide-ranging, and persistent. Well before the exposure of prisoner abuse in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, in April, 2004, Mora warned his superiors at the Pentagon about the consequences of President Bush’s decision, in February, 2002, to circumvent the Geneva conventions, which prohibit both torture and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” He argued that a refusal to outlaw cruelty toward U.S.-held terrorist suspects was an implicit invitation to abuse. Mora also challenged the legal framework that the Bush Administration has constructed to justify an expansion of executive power, in matters ranging from interrogations to wiretapping. He described as “unlawful,” “dangerous,” and “erroneous” novel legal theories granting the President the right to authorize abuse. Mora warned that these precepts could leave U.S. personnel open to criminal prosecution.
…Mora’s memo, however, shows that almost from the start of the Administration’s war on terror the White House, the Justice Department, and the Department of Defense, intent upon having greater flexibility, charted a legally questionable course despite sustained objections from some of its own lawyers.
Mora had some victories. “America has a lot to thank him for,” Brant, the former head of the N.C.I.S., told me. But those achievements were largely undermined by a small group of lawyers closely aligned with Vice-President Cheney. In the end, Mora was unable to overcome formidable resistance from several of the most powerful figures in the government.
On Saturday, excerpts from a recent speech by Mora were published in the Washington Post:
It is astonishing to me, still, that I should be here today addressing the issue of American cruelty — or that anyone would ever have to. Our forefathers, who permanently defined our civic values, drafted our Constitution inspired by the belief that law could not create but only recognize certain inalienable rights granted by God — to every person, not just citizens, and not just here but everywhere. Those rights form a shield that protects core human dignity. Because this is so, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel punishment. The constitutional jurisprudence of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments outlaws cruel treatment that shocks the conscience. The Geneva Conventions forbid the application of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to all captives, as do all of the major human rights treaties adopted and ratified by our country during the last century.
Despite this, there was abuse. Not all were mistreated, but some were. For those mistreated, history will ultimately judge what the precise quantum of abuse inflicted was — whether it was torture or some lesser cruelty — and whether it resulted from official commission or omission, or occurred despite every reasonable effort to prevent the abuse. Whatever the ultimate historical judgment, it is established fact that documents justifying and authorizing the abusive treatment of detainees during interrogation were approved and distributed. These authorizations rested on three beliefs: that no law prohibited the application of cruelty; that no law should be adopted that would do so; and that our government could choose to apply the cruelty — or not — as a matter of policy depending on the dictates of perceived military necessity.
The fact that we adopted this policy demonstrates that this war has tested more than our nation’s ability to defend itself. It has tested our response to our fears and the measure of our courage. It has tested our commitment to our most fundamental values and our constitutional principles.
On the same day I read that, it was quite disorienting to juxtapose it with the commencement speech Bush gave at the US Military Academy:
“By the actions he took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundations for America’s victory in the cold war,” Mr. Bush told the class of 2006.
Mr. Bush has compared the struggle against communism to the current war against Islamic radicalism in previous speeches, but his address on Saturday was his most developed on the theme. He left it unsaid that Truman was deeply unpopular at the end of his two terms in office and that it took a generation to appreciate his achievements.
“Like the cold war, we are fighting the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom, questions all dissent, has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims,” Mr. Bush said. He added that “like Americans in Truman’s day, we are laying the foundations for victory.”
Truman’s famous sign: The Buck Stops Here
It’s understandable that, with his tattered popularity and his foreign policy in shambles, Bush would seek refuge in the legacy of Truman. But there is a very simple reason (among many others) that history will not judge the Bush Presidency in the same light as Truman’s. Truman was famous for the sign on his desk that read “the buck stops here.” It’s quite evident in the Bush administration that the buck stops nowhere. From the intelligence foul-ups on WMD to Abu Ghraib, and so many other bad decisions that it’s hard to keep track of them all, no one in authority has been held responsible for anything. A true leader stands up and takes the heat, yet Bush has been unable to even think of a single significant mistake he’s made as President. (Note that if you carefully read his response to the question the other day asking about any mistakes he thinks he made in Iraq - which was generally reported as an admission of fault - he doesn’t actually acknowledge doing anything wrong. He expressed concern that some of his comments may have been “misinterpreted,” and he says those involved with Abu Ghraib were brought to justice. Given that only the lowest-ranking soldiers have been held accountable, this doesn’t exactly meet the threshold of taking responsibility, let alone acknowledge that his decision to open the door to cruel treatment of prisoners might have had something to do with cruel treatment of prisoners.)
14 years after it was closed, the old Jamestown Bridge in my home state of Rhode Island has been destroyed - it’s center span was exploded last month, and the rest of it was blown up late last week. From when I was a child to when it was closed during my last year of college, driving across this bridge often gave me butterflies in my stomach. It was very narrow, leaving no margin for error when dealing with cars passing you in the other lane. And if a car broke down and blocked a lane, it would take hours to disentangle the traffic. But the worst part was the center span - as you drove across it, there was no concrete under you - only see-through metal grates that would clang noisily as they shifted under the weight of your car.
Newport is on an island (Aquidneck), and the Newport Bridge connects it to Jamestown, which is also on an island (Conanicut). The Jamestown bridge is what got you to the mainland from there. In the sunset photo above, taken before the blast, the old bridge is on the left, and the new bridge is on the right.
I don’t know the details, but apparently it took this long to get rid of the old bridge because of various financial constraints and environmental concerns. Back in 1997, the Rhode Island DOT shopped around Hollywood for a movie studio to blow it up it for them, but there were no takers (I think they were inspired by the exploding bridge in the movie True Lies).
More photos, as well as video clips of the demolition, are in a “Digital Extra” section at the Providence Journal site - you’ll need to register to see it though (I copied the photos above from there). One of their articles on the demolition made me laugh with this statement: “For all who came, the demolition was a spectacle not to be missed, a chance to say goodbye to a piece of Rhode Island history that carried terror-filled memories and yet somehow managed to endear itself with its striking profile.” I’m hoping that last statement is tongue-in-check - by “striking profile” I assume they mean, “too ugly to be forgotten” (the dim, warm glow of the setting sun in the photo above is masking a number of sins).
We had some friends over a few weeks ago for brunch on a sunny Saturday (the first time we’ve entertained since fixing up the house - another milestone!). Breakfast food - pancakes, fruit, etc - is even easier to prepare than the usual BBQ foods, and it’s a guaranteed hit with the kids. Kai decided to dress up as Darth Vader for the occasion. By the afternoon, the temperature was in the 70s, but Kai refused to remove the winter boots and ski gloves that were integral to his outfit (although he did concede to removing the gloves temporarily so he could eat his pancakes). A friend of mine brought his 6 year old, whom Kai had never met before. The other boy also brought his light saber. I wasn’t there when when first saw each other, but I’m told the first thing Kai said was “my light saber is red!” and other boy said “mine’s blue!” and then they immediately began an epic light saber duel.
Grammar note: I’ve never known for sure when to use “whom” in a sentence, so I decided to finally look it up. Through the wonders of Google, I came across this handy rule of thumb: “…simply substitute the personal pronoun ‘he/him’ or ’she/her’ for ‘who/whom.’ If he or she would be the correct form, the proper choice is ‘who.’ If ‘him’ or ‘her’ would be correct, use ‘whom.’ …Even when the word order must be altered slightly, you can use the technique…” So in the sentence above, I’d say “Kai had never met him before,” so “whom” is the right choice.
I hope I don’t have to figure out this kind of stuff with Japanese…
457|1
Eidan mastered clapping a few days ago, and nothing inspires him to clap more than Kai acting like a goofball. The hand-twisting motion he’s doing at the start of the video is something he learned from Maria’s mother, who’s been staying with us the past couple of weeks. It goes with a Japanese nursery rhyme.
After you click a picture, you’ll need to come back here to get to the next one - don’t use the navigation arrows. Sorry about that. Turn up the volume on the movie clip!
Eidan’s been crawling for a couple of weeks now. He had a lot of trouble with it at first, as he didn’t do his “swimming” practice before trying to crawl. When Kai was an infant he - like most babies - would get on his stomach and flail his arms and legs, building up his strength and coordination before trying to crawl. But Eidan always hated being on his stomach, so in his first attempts at crawling, he had a lot of trouble holding himself up for any length of time, and he couldn’t control his arms and legs very well. But now he’s built up his strength and has his arms and legs doing what he wants them to, and he has become the master of his domain. As you might expect, he’s into everything - if you let him loose in a room, he will explore every corner of it. He’s also smart as a whip - he studies everything that goes on around him. For example, I showed him a matchbox car the other day, and rolled it in front of him. He immediately picked it up, turned it over, and stared at the wheels while carefully spinning one of them with his finger. He’s also entirely too happy - at any given moment, you’re most likely to see a smile on his face. But recently he’s also started showing he has a temper: if he gets his hands on something he shouldn’t have, and you take it away and replace it with something else, he’ll probably scream at you and throw the thing you gave him. I’ve also noticed that he’ll play by himself in a way that Kai never did at this age. As long as he knows you’re nearby, Eidan will feel free to venture out of the room on his own, or he’ll sit and play with toys without demanding you get involved (as an infant, Kai always wanted someone right there with him). So, while Eidan may look an awful lot like Kai, his personality is definitely different.
A year and a half ago, I posted some exterior shots of our house - it was after we had replaced the windows and ripped out all the old, overgrown shrubs, but before we had painted. If you’re too lazy to click the link, here’s one of those pictures:
Before painting:
Last fall we had the house painted. I didn’t do it myself, as it would have taken me forever, and because I try to avoid spending time on tall ladders (it comes from knowing more than one person who’s been seriously injured falling from a ladder or a roof). We picked the same colors that we used on our house in California. We spent a fair amount of time picking those colors, and since we painted right before we moved, we never got to enjoy them. Even though our house here is quite different from the California house, we felt the colors would work just as well. We also had the front door replaced and shutters installed.
After painting:
456|3
Last month I planted the small shrubs you can see there. I would have done more, but that’s all I had time for. We figured we’d get the “big” plants in now, so they can start to grow in, and we can put in smaller plants when we have more time in the future (yes, I know, that imaginary future that has “free time”).
If you’re wondering about the bright, garish flag, it’s for the Japanese May 5th holiday, Boys’ Day.
