Various items on "DSK" (Dominique Strauss-Kahn)

Bmaz at FDL writes about the state of the case as of Saturday in DSK Case Collapse: Lawyers, Phone Calls & Money the S*** Hits The Fan 07/02/2011. I checked back at my one post where I discussed the Strauss-Kahn case, Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arrest and the IMF's political direction 05/17/2011, and was relieved to see I didn't say anything that I'm embarrassed about now. My focus there was on the potential implications of his departure from the IMF. And I still say that the American press coverage I've seen passed over the IMF policy implications pretty lightly. I also posted a video of a debate between Naomi Wolf and Maureen Tkacik on thorny issues raised by the case and its larger context. Wolf's reservations about whether due process was being observed by the law and whether the press was being sufficiently careful are particilarly notable in light of the latest developments.

This is the news report from PBS Newshour, In Strauss-Kahn Case, All Eyes on Accuser's Statements 07/01/2011:



As I noted in that May post, Strauss-Kahn is clearly an arrogant prick. And it's important to note that, as of this writing, his accuser has not withdraw her rape accusation nor has the prosecutor withdrawn the charges. And the fact that the accuser may also be an unsavory character doesn't mean her accusation shouldn't be taken seriously. Clearly, the New York District Attorney's office did take it very seriously.

But, as bmaz describes, the rape case looks like it's going up in smoke:

It is not often you see the total implosion of a major criminal case in quite such a spectacular fashion as we have witnessed with the Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) case in the last 24 plus hours. As I said Thursday night when the news first broke of the evidentiary infirmities in relation to the putative victim were first made public in the New York Times; there is simply no way for the prosecution to recover, the criminal case is dead toast.

Today, the letter from the Manhattan DA’s Office to DSK’s attorneys detailing the Brady material disclosures gutting their victim’s credibility was made public. It is, to say the least, shocking. But what has transpired since then has been nothing short of stunning.

As expected, DSK had his release conditions modified to OR (own recognizance) and all restrictions, save for not leaving the United States, removed. If you do not think that is a crystal clear sign of just how much trouble the prosecution is in, then you do not know criminal trial law.

Well, I don't know criminal trial law on any specialized level. But what Jim Dwyer and Michael Wilson report in Strauss-Kahn Accuser's Call Alarmed Prosecutors New York Times 07/01/2011 indicates that not only is her credibility as a witness in question in a general way. There is also at least one piece of evidence, from a call she made to an acquaintance in prison the day after the alleged attack that was recorded, that directly relates to her credibility on the specific allegation. The PBS Newshour report above also mentions a serious oddity about her initial account of the incident under oath to the grand jury. The prosecution has not yet dropped the charges of rape and sexual assault. Bmaz speculates that dropping the charges could come as early as next week. But the case is still pending as of now.

Laura Rozen in Lawyer for alleged victim in DSK case lashes out at DA, says victim will come forward The Envoy 07/01/2011 writes, "'Law & Order' could not have produced a script with more dramatic turnarounds."

Digby, whose has been piercingly critical of our Pod Pundits' obsession with stories involving sex and powerful people, recalls in DSK: with friends like these ... Hullabaloo 07/01/2011 the dubious quality of the public support he received from the for-some-reason-famous philosopher Bernard Henri Levy: "With friends like Bernard Henri Levy, DSK is lucky he didn't get life in prison. Let's just say his [Levy's] defense [of Strauss-Kahn] was what made me tend to believe the charges."

Robert Kuttner has generally had some decent commentary on the case, including this piece which commenting on how unions help protect members from employer retaliation in reporting a sexual assault in situation like this one in Union Maid The American Prospect Online 06/06/2011.

But Kuttner took some flak for this post, Applying Occam's Razor to Strauss-Kahn The American Prospect Online 06/30/2011. He addresses the criticisms here: Postscript on DSK The American Prospect Online 06/30/2011.

Tags: maureen tkacik, naomi wolf, strauss-kahn

Discussion on Strauss-Kahn case

This Retuers video posted 05/26/2011 features Naomi Wolf and Maureen Tkacik discussing the Dominique Strauss-Kahn assualt case:



Tags: maureen tkacik, naomi wolf, strauss-kahn

Naomi Wolf on collective guilt

Naomi Wolf: wants most torturers to go unpunished

Naomi Wolf writes a lot of good things. This column is not one of them: We are all torturers in America The Guardian 04/28/09. Now her bottom line, coming in her last paragraph, is:

... the only people who should be prosecuted are, as at Nuremberg, those who directed otherwise honorable men and women to commit crimes – the lawyers, and those who are on record as having given the orders: Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself.

I try to keep focused on what I know about the laws here. And my understanding is that, under the 1984 Torture Convention treaty, the government does not have the option to decline to prosecute people for whom there is good evidence they committed torture. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which John McCain brags so often about voting for, immunized people prior to that time for acts of hands-on torture, with some conditions. But torture didn't stop in 2005. And in my lay person's understanding of the law, that legislated immunity is invalid under the Torture Convention. That treaty was designed to provide an overriding legal protection against that very kind of attempt to shield torturers from prosecution.

Her history is a bit selective. She says that only high-level perpetrators were put on trial at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, and that is more-or-less true. But others were tried in the courts of individual nations, notably including concentration camp guards. And I believe a few very elderly people still have charges pending against them from the Second World War.

And I find it downright creepy that she refers to the torturers as "otherwise honorable men and women". Great: except for the fact they inflicted sadistic tortures on prisoners, they're "honorable men and women"! What the hell is that about? What is she thinking?

She does explain why she wants the hands-on torturers, the doctors and psychologists who participated in torture, the mid-level bureaucrats military and civilian that knowingly participated to go free of any legal consequences. She also noticeably excludes senior military officers from her list of those who should be prosecuted. As well as Colin Powell. Her reason for not wanting to prosecute most people involved in the torture program despite the law, including the Torture Convention? She says all we Americans are guilty of torture:

As citizens' outrage over the torture memos heats up, and the US Congress is barraged with calls to appoint a special prosecutor, Americans may be about to commit an egregious miscarriage of justice. Republicans have now accused Democrats in Congress of having "blood on your hands too" in relation to the escalating calls to investigate. I would go further: not only do Congressional Democrats have blood on their hands – but so do we, the American people. And CIA agents may be about to be sacrificed to assuage their – and our – actual and associative guilt.

The suddenly urgent calls by our Congressional Democratic leaders, and even by many of the American people, to prosecute CIA operatives, military men and women and contractors who were certainly involved with, colluded in or turned a blind eye to torture are not only the height of hypocrisy, they are a form of unconscionable scapegoating. The scapegoating is political on the part of Congressional leaders, and psychological on the part of many Americans who are now "shocked" at what was done in their name. [my emphasis]

This is nonsense. It's a familiar argument: everyone is guilty so no one is guilty. Except Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and the torture lawyers. The exceptions would seem to be inconsistent, as torture supporters would be quick to point out, though they probably wouldn't try to engage the issue of collective guilt because they don't think torture is a guilty act.

This is where the notion that there is no such thing as collective guilt but there is collective responsibility, is so important. Her blanket indictment is fairly mindless, I'm afraid. There were lots of citizens - a majority, according to the polls taken during the Cheney-Bush years - who opposed torture. There were lots of us who said publicly that the torture program was wrong. There were human rights and civil-liberties groups that went to court to stop the torture program, and people who contributed money to those organizations for that purpose. There were journalists who exposed the program and the occasional publisher who printed the stories. There were Members of Congress that conscientiously opposed the torture program all along.

And while I'm not especially inclined to be generous about voters who supported the torture program outright, I also try to be realistic about it. The Cheney-Bush administration tried mightily to hide the program behind a wall of secrecy, and individually refused to address any particular method of torture being used. So there were people who either discounted the reports of torture, or believed the continued administration assurances that no one was being tortured. Or they looked at things like the phony exercise of Congress in 2005 outlawing torture again when it was already illegal and the administration was already violating the laws in place, saw the indifference of the respectable Beltway Villagers toward torture, and assumed the problem was over. And, of course, some people who didn't care one way or another.

I would argue that Americans who didn't oppose torture outright weren't being responsible citizens on that issue. Media figures from Republican Party chief Rush Limbaugh who praised the torture to our Big Pundits who excused it or let it slide for years also failed in their responsibilities as journalists and public figures. And are still failing. To see how, just check out last Sunday's column by the man who is known as the "Dean" of the Washington press corps: Stop Scapegoating by David Broder Washington Post 04/26/09. Or this one by columnist Richard Cohen of the same paper in On Higher Ground, but Not Safer 04/28/09, in which you have to get to the very last paragraph to get any inkling that he realizes that there might be laws against torture.

But all those are levels of civic or moral responsibility. There are not areas of legal guilt. It is not against the law to say you think torture is a great idea. Despicable, but not against the law. It is against the law to torture someone, order someone else to torture someone or give legal advice designed to facilitate the crime of torture.

I know that "blood on your hands" is metaphorical, although I don't know of any Republicans expressing it that way in trying to implicate the Democrats. But failing to do what was adequate, as both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress failed on the torture program, is also not a crime. Morally reprehensible, but not a crime.

For those Members of Congress of either Party who knew more specifics about the torture program, they conceivably have a heavier burden of moral responsibility, and possibly even legal culpability. But until the minutes of those meetings are declassified and made public, we really don't know how much Members of Congress of either Party knew about the "enhanced interrogation" program. We need to know. And if some Members of Congress because of their participation in special briefings took on some kind of legal responsibility for the torture crimes, then they should be prosecuted as well, of course. But we should at least acknowledge that the Democrats involved in the secret briefings related to the torture program are saying that the briefings did not include details about torture actually being used on prisoners.

Wolf's collective guilt argument is basically frivolous. And ugly, in that she uses it as an argument for letting most of the torturers go free with no prosecution. And, worst of all, she treats prosecution of torture crimes as a policy or even purely political option instead of what it is: a serious obligation under law and international treaties.

Tags: accountability for torture, naomi wolf, torture

Everyday response to terrorism

Naomi Wolf makes a good point in her post Threat as Tactic? Why Hillary's Warning is Right 08/27/07.

She may be overstating the case for Clinton's particular comment she's discussing.

But this is what especially struck me:

Let's also compare the way this White House talks about the terror threat with the way other societies that have decades-long experience with terrorist attacks do. And let's use our common sense. Anyone who has ever lived in Israel -- a country where, since its very birth, sophisticated terrorists have been targeting the civilian population day and night -- knows that you NEVER get the equivalent of broad-anxiety-inducing alerts in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem like the "red alert" or "orange alert" system here at home. At the most, in Israel, you get practical, low-key, usable information from the state -- for example, "avoid the Machaneh Yehudah marketplace this Friday afternoon" -- no matter who is in power. Israelis, consequently, experience, on the day-to-day level, the possibility of terror attacks as a specific, real danger -- but not as a state-produced existential condition, a matrix of helpless fear. (Indeed, avoiding national fear from terror attacks is a point of pride in Israel that transcends party lines).

Nor do Israelis get our regular-as-rain triumphalist narratives in the press about this or that terrorist's creepy bio, his sinister face, or this or that thwarted, grandiose attack on this or that cherished national monument. There is not a constant struggle between the Knesset and the party in power over the declassification of intelligence, comparable to our struggle here at home. Rather, when there is something the people need to know, Mossad lets the people's leaders -- whatever party is in power -- know it. Everyone in Israel understands that terror is too serious to mess with politically -- that intelligence about attacks is too important to disclose or to conceal for political purposes -- and that Mossad is always, very quietly, at work.

Anyone who has lived in the UK during the years of regular, bloody IRA bombings has experienced similar restraint. Nations that have long been primarily intent on tracking and thwarting terrorists -- rather than, perhaps, driving policy with fear -- just don't talk about terrorism in the same way (or nearly so much). Even now -- fighting the very same "bad guys" that we are fighting -- Gordon Brown has reminded his nation and ours that "terrorism is not a cause, it is a crime."

Tags: global war on terror, israel, naomi wolf, terrorism, war on terror