Month: July 2016

Iraq war document leaker Chelsea Manning, in prison for violating the Espionage Act while serving in the Army, was hospitalized yesterday and a source is telling CNN that it was due to a suicide attempt.

It’s not verified as yet, and Manning’s own attorney told CNN he’s still trying to find out what happened to Manning at Fort Leavenworth. Manning is serving a 35-year sentence for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military documents to Wikileaks to publicize how the war was being operated, including a video of a military helicopter firing on Reuters employees, confusing their cameras for guns.

Manning also revealed that she was transgender right after being convicted, eventually legally changing her name from Bradley to Chelsea.

Just recently the military announced its plans to accommodate transgender troops in a way that allows them to live openly, while still upholding military standards of gendered behavior. (In other words: Yes, you can change your gender, but you have to commit to living as the opposite sex.) Manning, while happy to see the end of the ban on transgender troops, did not support the requirements for accommodation the military were planning to put in place. She wrote an op-ed for The Guardian:

The policy outlined by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter would require new recruits to be “stable in their identified gender for 18 months, as certified by their doctor, before they can enter the military”. How many young trans people like myself fit this criteria? The idea of having a gender certification process is a misuse of the medically accepted standards of care. What is the stability of gender? Isn’t gender an inherently unstable concept – always being constrained by the various context and rules under which we live?

I worry that this type of requirement will further entrench the gender binary and further legitimize the control that administrators and medical providers have over our bodies and our identities.

And what about those of us who are incarcerated? Will these rules apply to us? I am deeply concerned that like so many policies, the impact of this change won’t penetrate the prison walls. What does it mean that the military will recognize our gender, unless and until we are arrested, and then what? This core identity is then stripped away and our birth assigned sex is imposed on us?

Manning’s defense team put out a statement that they were “shocked and outraged” that somebody talked to the press with confidential information about Manning’s health condition, but her own attorneys still have no idea what has happened or whether the claim that she attempted suicide is even true. They’ve been told the military would not be able to schedule a phone conversation with Chelsea until Friday, but they’re demanding to speak to her now.

The Georgia Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from the Georgia Department of Transportation on Tuesday that would have prevented a local Ku Klux Klan chapter from suing the state after the group was denied the right to participate in the state’s highway cleanup program.

The court rejected the department’s appeal of a lower court decision in favor of the group. The appeal was filed incorrectly, it said, leaving the justices “without jurisdiction” to prevent the suit from going forward.

In May 2012, the International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan applied to participate in Georgia’s “Adopt-A-Highway” program. The  organization was seeking to pick up trash along a section of State Route 515. The transportation department denied the request for two reasons. The first was that the route is a controlled-access highway with a speed limit of 65 miles per hour; for the safety of both volunteers and drivers, the department said, this location could not be adopted.

The second reason is where things get interesting. In a June 2012 letter to member April Chambers, then–Transportation Commissioner Keith Golden said:

The impact of erecting a sign naming an organization which has a long rooted history of civil disturbance would cause a significant public concern. Impacts include safety of the travelling public, potential social unrest, driver distraction or interference with the flow of traffic. These potential impacts are such that were the application granted, the goal of the program, to allow civic minded organizations to participate in public service for the State of Georgia, would not be met.

The KKK, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sued the department. While the group understood the stretch it originally proposed to adopt was not available for safety reasons, it argued the denial of the application was also a violation of its free speech. As Debbie Seagraves, the then–executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, put it:

The fundamental right to free speech is not limited to only those we agree with or groups that are inoffensive. The government cannot pick or choose who is protected by the Constitution. There will always be speech and groups conveying hateful messages that are distasteful to some. That is why the First Amendment protects free speech for all.

In November 2014, a trial judge ruled in favor of the KKK, saying the group’s application was “singled-out for scrutiny not given to other applicants” and that the second reason for denial was a violation of the group’s freedom of speech. The state then opted to appeal this decision.

The suit will go forward, but this win by the Ku Klux Klan may be more symbolic than anything else: The state suspended the entire highway cleanup program in 2012. Still, it’s a good day for the idea that all speech, no matter how disgusting it may be, should be protected.

This is not the first time a government body and the white supremacist group have clashed with regard to trash cleanup rights. In March 2001, the United States Supreme Court refused to review an appeal by the state of Missouri, which was looking to prevent a KKK chapter from participating in their Adopt-A-Highway program. While the group won the right to pick up trash along part of Interstate 55, it was ultimately kicked out of the program for failing to actually do so.

Once upon a time, when a Republican was president, there was a lot of mainstream interest in the status of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008, Barack Obama won the presidency in part by promising to end the war in Iraq and focus on the “good war” in Afghanistan. In 2012 President Obama ran for re-election claiming he had ended the war in Iraq and was ending the war in Afghanistan.

Obama had not ended the Iraq war, and after the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), he insisted the decision to end the war for which he took credit in the re-election campaign was not a decision for which he was responsible. Even in 2012 it looked like Obama was not ending the war in Afghanistan.

Since then the U.S. has blown through several timetables set by President Obama on Afghanistan withdrawal. In 2015 Obama announced 6,000 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan through 2017, leading Nick Gillespie to ask “What Part of Pulling Out Does Obama Not Understand?“

The not-ending of the war in Afghanistan continues today, with President Obama announcing 8,400 troops would remain in Afghanistan through next year. “The narrow missions assigned to our forces will not change,” Obama insisted. “They’ll remain focused on supporting Afghan forces and going after terrorists.”

Obama said the higher troop levels, recommended by his military advisors, would “allow us to continue to provide tailored support to help Afghan forces continue to improve… [and] continue supporting Afghan forces on the ground and in the air.”

The U.S. role in Afghanistan is not limited to training and support. A U.S. air strike in May took out the leader of the Taliban. President Obama said at the time that he hoped the Taliban would “seize the opportunity” and rejoin peace talks with the Afghan government. Instead the Taliban chose a harder hardliner as its new leader. Afghan troops, meanwhile, suffer from low morale and desertion, sometimes withdrawing from entire districts.

Last year, the U.S. hit a Doctors Without Borders facility in Afghanistan, representing the first time one Nobel Peace Prize winner (President Obama, 2009) bombed another Nobel Peace Prize winner (Doctors Without Borders, 1999). The U.S. blamed a series of errors but no one faced anything other than “administrative” charges for the incident, in which 42 people were killed.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has called the Afghanistan war a “mistake” but has nevertheless insisted U.S. troops must remain in the country. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has backed postponing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson said he supported the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan during the 2012 election cycle, but the war has not been a major issue in the 2016 campaign so far.

Obama heads to Warsaw this week for a NATO summit at which the alliance’s nearly 15-year-long mission in Afghanistan is expected to be discussed. At the meeting NATO is also expected to agree to deploying four multinational battalions to Poland and the Baltic states. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also highlighted that military spending by “European Allies and Canada” was expected to rise by 3 percent, or 8 billion dollars, this year. Much of the increased spending has come from Poland and the Baltic states.

A British man found not guilty of rape must nonetheless give the authorities 24 hour notice before he engages in sex.

A guy must let the cops know when, where, and with whom he is going to engage in intimate relations. This notification rule goes into effect in August and The Mirror reports that the police are going to ask that it become permanent.

Now the man, who is single, is threatening to go on a hunger strike.

According to Mediate.com:

The 40-year-old man, who legally cannot be named, was given a retrial in 2015 and acquitted of rape. Despite the ruling, police issued a “sexual risk order” against him. Under the order, the man must “disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth… at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place.”

“I protest that even though a jury found me unanimously not guilty, after nearly two years I still find myself being punished for a crime that never happened,” the York man wrote in a statement to the press. “I protest to being subject to an order that is unlawful in almost every syllable, is unjustified and is so extreme as to be utterly unlivable.”

The Telegraph reports that this isn’t just a rule for folks found guilty of a sex crime:

Full sexual risk orders last for a minimum of two years and breaching an order can lead to a prison sentence of up to five years.

They are used when someone has not been convicted of a sexual offence, but the police convince a court it is necessary for one to be made against the person to protect the public from him or her.

As insane as that law sounds, I’d add that even if he was found guilty of rape and had served his time, this rule would be utterly untenable. Somehow we allow bank robbers to go to the bank after they are out of prison, and murderers, once freed, are allowed to buy meat cleavers. Former arsonists are not required to notify the cops 24 hours before they fry an egg.

Yet we treat sex offenders—and apparently even those found not guilty of sex offenses, but tainted by the mere accusation—as if they are insatiable recidivists, bent on violating every living being they approach. This is why we forbid people on the sex offender registry from living near parks and schools, even though these residency restrictions have been found to have “no demonstrable effect” effect on child safety.

What’s more the idea that sex offenders re-offend more than other criminals is completely wrong. A study by the Department of Justice found a 5.3 percent recidivism rate among sex offenders—lower than any other group except murderers.

The Mirror reports that the man in this story “admitted to previously having an interest in sado-masochistic sex and used to visit a Fifty Shades Of Grey-style fetish club with an ex-partner.”

So what? The hysteria around sex is so great that the man has had virtually all his freedom taken away under the guise of keeping the public safe:

He said there was “no prospect” of a relationship at the moment.

He said: “Can you imagine, 24 hours before sex? Come on.”

The man has been charged with breaching the terms of the order by refusing to give police the PIN to his phone.

He decided, having taken legal advice, not to give them the code as a point of principle, because he said the terms of an SRO were supposed to be prohibitive, not obligatory.

He was arrested and held in police custody overnight.

The terms of his SRO mean he cannot use any internet-enabled device that cannot be later checked by police.

He said that banned him from using certain fridges and lifts that are connected to the web.

The wording of the order also stops him from using an intercom such as those used to get into a nursery or a flat.

He said: “I’m in a state of shock, I cannot believe this is how the justice system works. “I thought the police were interested in finding out the truth, the only thing the police are interested in is securing convictions.”

Beyond that, I’d wager the police and authorities want to score a sexual victory: They can tell the public they have kept a predator at bay… even if the predator was an ordinary guy, not preying on anyone.

After FBI Director James Comey announced yesterday, more or less, that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law but wasn’t going to be prosecuted for it, the Libertarian Party issued a press release condemning the lack of any potential legal punishment for Clinton.

Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee, was quoted:

“This is a serious miscarriage of justice,” says Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “One key criteria for laws to be just is that they must be applied equally to all.” Countless other people who have served in roles handling classified information have been prosecuted, fined, and jailed for far lesser breaches of protocol and security.

I asked the Johnson campaign for a comment yesterday given the latest. “As this unfolded the Govs have been traveling and we don’t have a statement,” was a response sent overnight from the campaign’s press office.

The most recent detailed comment on Clinton and her email troubles from Johnson I found were on CNN and were quoted in the Washington Examiner on July 3:

“I don’t think there’s been criminal intent on Hillary Clinton’s part, so I don’t see an indictment,” the former New Mexico governor told CNN on Sunday morning.

“I’m not a stone thrower when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her emails and her server…”

Johnson and Weld were already being written off by many Libertarians as overly solicitous to Clinton who they are, it should be remembered, running against. One might expect them to at least occasionally take the time to critique when appropriate.

Asked about Clinton on their CNN Town Hall appearance in June, Johnson praised her as a “wonderful public servant” and vice presidential candidate William Weld truthfully referred to her as an “old friend.”

Johnson’s manifest unwillingness to play what he might see as a right-wing gotcha game against Clinton almost certainly comes from a sincere place where policy is more important than a process scandal. He may perhaps be a staunch defender of mens rea and think, even after Comey’s statements, that a prosecution is unjust.

Whatever the case may be, a campaign currently running nearly entirely on free earned media should consider taking advantage of news cycles to his benefit and to remember that on all sides he is trying to appeal to—disaffected Democrats or progressives who preferred Sanders, or Republicans who can’t abide Trump—there is much to gain and little to lose in being willing to point out political or personal flaws in his competitors, whether or not he sincerely believes she should face jail time for it. Even if it is merely using that news hook to point out where he thinks Clinton does deserve censure or criticism.

The Green Party’s Jill Stein quickly condemned Clinton in the aftermath of the Comey announcement, openly calling for Clinton’s prosecution, saying “All the elements necessary to prove a felony violation were found by the FBI investigation.”

I’ve seen a whole lot of annoyance and anger coming Johnson’s way over his lack of interest in condemning Hillary Clinton over this, particularly among fans of Austin Petersen, who came in second to Johnson in the Party’s nomination process. 

Petersen released a video dinging Johnson for his previous comments above about Clinton’s email. And he contrasts it with his willingness to call Trump a racist on CNN.

“Unless you are just a Gary Johnson sycophant, you won’t be a big fan” of how Johnson has dealt with this issue, Petersen said. “Even the FBI said she was grossly negligent…it is a crime, so it doesn’t make any sense from a political standpoint to defend Hillary Clinton unless there is some weird ulterior motive.” Petersen notes that Weld is a very old friend of Clinton’s, and goes on to condemn what he sees as an overly “social justice warrior” vibe to Johnson’s “effete liberalism” and calls his defense of Clinton “egregious.”