Ducking in

Today, at the Duck of Minerva group IR blog, I posted "Cheney: The Most Dangerous Veep Ever?" It concerns the political stunts he pulled -- and lies he told -- to promote war against Iraq.

Thursday, June 25, I posted "Is Obama channeling Bush?" The post is about the latest increase in heated rhetoric from President Obama about events in Iran.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Global Health

Does foreign aid work? I've mentioned that question previously, but there's new disturbing data recently published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal. Here's the AP account of one recent study:

Trying to show health campaigns actually saved lives is "a very difficult scientific dilemma," said Tim Evans, a senior World Health Organization official who worked on one of the papers.

In one paper, WHO researchers examined the impact of various global health initiatives during the last 20 years.

They found some benefits, like increased diagnosis of tuberculosis cases and higher vaccination rates. But they also concluded some U.N. programs hurt health care in Africa by disrupting basic services and leading some countries to slash their health spending.

The other study discussed in the AP story about the journal articles notes that health aid dollars do not necessarily match need. It would appear as if many political factors influence aid decisions:

[University of Washington researcher Chris] Murray and colleagues also found AIDS gets at least 23 cents of every health dollar going to poor countries. Globally, AIDS causes fewer than 4 percent of deaths.

"Funds in global health tend to go to whichever lobby group shouts the loudest, with AIDS being a case in point," said Philip Stevens of International Policy Network, a London think tank.

Somewhat cynically, Philip Stevens of International Policy Network (a British think tank) points out the mixed motives of the aid community:

"The public health community has convinced the public the only way to improve poor health in developing countries is by throwing a ton of money at it," Stevens said. "It is perhaps not coincidental that thousands of highly paid jobs and careers are also dependent on it."

It's fairly disheartening.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Fall classes: books and films

This past week, I made final book selections for my fall classes.

MWF at noon I'm teaching POLS 335, Global Ecopolitics, a course which is most often called Global Environmental Politics at other schools. However, I did my graduate training at University of Maryland where Dennis Pirages was pioneering the study of "ecopolitics." In addition to extensive discussion of global environmental concerns (with a focus this term on climate change), my course devotes a great deal of attention to both resource politics and global poverty. There are still plenty of seats available in the course. Students do not need prior exposure to either international relations or environment courses.

In the right-hand column of this blog, I've added a link to my textbook selections available on-line at Powell's Bookstore. The list includes books I've used in the past few years, though it begins with books selected for the coming term:

Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren by Joseph Dimento and Pamela Doughman (MIT 2007).






Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies by James Gustave Speth and Peter Haas (Island, 2006).






The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It by Paul Collier (Oxford, 2008).






I'm also teaching POLS 552, Global Politics Through Film. The class will be viewing films on Monday afternoons at 3 pm (the class ends at 5:15) and will discuss them on Wednesdays from 4 to 5 pm. I've taught the course twice since 2006 -- students can find a list of films used previously here. I changed a couple of selections from fall 2006 to summer 2008 and may again tweak some choices from the original list. Time constraints are a major concern as some interesting films are longer than 150 minutes.

I think it is a fun class for students and I must increase enrollment before late August for it to remain on the schedule. My pitch: students do not have to take any exams, but will write a couple of short analytical or review papers through the term -- culminating in a longer research paper at the end. I provide extensive feedback and typically allow rewrites of papers in classes at the 500 level. All of the paper assignments tie to film texts. Undergraduates worried about taking this course at the 500 level may be able to sign up for a 300 or 400 level course and might be able to arrange for this to count as a Writing Requirement (WR).

No textbooks with substantive international relations content are required; the class will instead read a couple of short IR-related articles each week. The class focuses on substantive issues more than IR theory. The following books is recommended as an aide to writing about film:

A Short Guide To Writing About Film by Timothy J. Corrigan (Longman, 2006).


This is the sixth edition of Corrigan's brief text. Though a new 7th edition is available, I figured that it would be cheaper for students to buy used copies of the slightly older one. I think it would be OK for students to consult any recent edition of the book and it is likely that the new edition will have a better resale value.


Disclosure: The blog receives a 7.5% commission on book sales purchased through links from this website.

Visit this blog's homepage.

Duck doings

Today, at the Duck of Minerva group IR blog, I posted "Joking Cousins" about the "joking relationships" that operate throughout Africa. Practitioners insult one another without taking offense -- a social tie that is said to promote peaceful order within various societies.

On Wednesday, June 10, I posted "Domestic terror" about the recent shooting inside the Holocaust Museum and the murder of an abortion services provider in Wichita. Do these violent attacks mean that the Department of Homeland Security was correct a few months ago when it warned about the danger of radical right-wing extremism in the US?


Visit this blog's homepage.

Steroids update: Sosa HR edition

Today, The New York Times is reporting that baseball slugger Sammy Sosa tested positive for steroids in 2003. At that time, Major League Baseball's steroid policy was supposed to assure anonymity for players who tested positive.

As I've noted previously, contemporary players appearing on the all-time home run leader board are widely viewed as tainted. Consider this list of men who played in the 1990s who cracked the top 25 HR:

1. Barry Bonds: lots of evidence, apparently.
5. Ken Griffey Jr.
6. Sammy Sosa: 2009 report of 2003 test failure
8. Mark McGwire: 1998 Androstenedione use plus much other innuendo
10. Rafael Palmeiro: suspended in 2005
12. Alex Rodriguez: in 2009 admitted steroid use from 2001-2003
13. Jim Thome
17. Manny Ramirez: suspended in 2009
18T. Frank Thomas
24. Gary Sheffield: named in Mitchell report concerning 2003 usage
25. Eddie Murray

Does this mean Griffey, Thome and Thomas are the real home run heroes of the steroids era?


Visit this blog's homepage.

The resource curse

I've just returned from nearly a week in an oil-rich state well-known for its opposition to the American regime. The big story, as has been widely reported, involves thuggish government behavior, which highlights its power. New information technology has played a key role in the backlash -- with lots of people lamenting the lack of government transparency.

No, I didn't go to Iran. For news about the controversial election and the even more contentious aftermath, visit my colleagues at the Duck of Minerva who are doing a great job.

FYI: I just spent about a week near Tulsa, where the local news media focused incessantly on the brutality of a state trooper towards an ambulance driver. The video isn't pretty.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Sugar

"Sugar" may be the best film about baseball that I've seen. It is a realistic story of a young pitcher from the Dominican Republic who is invited to spring training in the USA and then assigned to a low minor league team in small-town Iowa.

The film focuses attention on the agents and leagues operating in Latin America, as well as the immigrant experience in America. Indeed, the film would have been perfect for my "Globalization (and Baseball)" course that I taught during fall 2003. After all, I assigned Stealing Lives by Arturo J. Marcano Guevara and David P. Fidler, which tells the story of sweatshop baseball labor throughout Latin America.

Former Cincinnati Reds ace Jose Rijo plays a fairly prominent role in the movie. Apparently, presuming the film is accurate, baseball has upgraded the facilities in the Dominican Republican because Marcano Guevara and Fidler describe players working and living in squalor.

As you might expect, the film gives some attention to steroids. Most importantly, it emphasizes the precarious position of young men in Latin America pursuing an unlikely dream. The movie also shows the advantages granted to the million dollar draftee ("Brad Johnson") from Stanford. He teaches the main character about the life and work of former Latin star Roberto Clemente, who said: "Any time you have an opportunity to make a difference in this world and you don't, then you are wasting your time on Earth."


Visit this blog's homepage.

Crime in the City is-a Getting Worse

Back in the 1980s, one of my favorite bands was the Beat Farmers -- a cowpunk group from southern California. One of their great songs was called "Gun Sale at the Church" (that's a video link).

Irony is a powerful weapon, right?

Sometimes, reality is even more potent. The Courier-Journal, June 3:

A Valley Station Road church is sponsoring an "Open Carry Church Service" in late June, encouraging people to wear unloaded guns in their holsters, enter a raffle to win a free handgun, hear patriotic music and listen to talks by operators of gun stores and firing ranges.

Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church said the first-time event is "basically trying to think a little bit outside the box" to promote "responsible gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights."

The idea is fairly controversial in the local religious community. "Rev. Nancy Jo Kemper of Lexington...said the event 'would nauseate Jesus.'"

Apparently, the event has been planned to help celebrate the 4th of July -- not the latest act of domestic terrorism.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Discrimination and the Court

Just to be clear, the widely quoted and allegedly "racist" remark from Judge Sonia Sotomayor is from a section of a speech specifically concerning decisions in "race and sex discrimination cases." This is the relevant section from the speech -- with the part you've likely heard marked in red:

...our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

A bit earlier in the talk, Sotomayor accepted "the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought."


Visit this blog's homepage.

The judge who saved baseball

Tuesday, several people asked me about Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. I replied that I knew very little -- only that she was the judge who saved baseball in the 1994 labor dispute. Later that day, I saw Obama describe her in exactly those words.

As part of the negotiation for a new labor deal in 1994, the union went out on strike to prevent implementation of a salary cap. Owners had built a large strike fund and refused withdraw this demand. Owners also skipped an August 1 pension payment to the players. The dispute forced the end of the season in August, leading the owners to cancel the playoffs and World Series.

The next spring, owners fielded replacement players and threatened to market inferior baseball. The National Labor Relations Board rejected owners' negotiating strategies. From Doug Grabiner's FAQ:

The NLRB first threatened to issue a complaint that the owners had not negotiated in good faith on February 3, 1995; the owners settled by withdrawing the cap. However, they then responded to the players' ending their signing freeze by initiating their own signing freeze, and unilaterally renewing contracts by changing the language to deny players the right to arbitration and free agency.

On March 15, the NLRB issued a new complaint over this charge. On March 26, it asked Judge Sotomayor to grant an injunction restoring the old work rules. She granted this injunction on March 31, and the MLBPA then terminated the strike. When the owners decided not to lock the players out, spring training began, with Opening Day postponed to April 25.

The owners appealed this decision, and asked for a stay of the injunction. The stay was denied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on September 29. This upholds Judge Sotomayor's ruling that the owners may not declare an impasse without her approval. The injunction also restored the old work rules pending a hearing on the full charges. This hearing was postponed at least eleven times as negotiations continued, was never held, and became moot with the new agreement.

The complaint over the August 1, 1994 pension payment was settled on May 19, 1995. The owners agreed to make this payment with interest by June 1, 1995, and agreed to make another payment on August 1, 1995, following the All-Star game.

Conservative columnist George Will apparently distorted this history to portray Sotomayor as an activist judge, but it is easy to find a corrective online. Indeed, even owner lawyers say she issued a fair ruling:

Sotomayor’s ruling restored the terms of the previous labor agreement so the season could go forward. Randy Levine, who became the owners’ chief labor negotiator five months after Sotomayor’s injunction, said her decision “gave both sides an opportunity to take a breath, to take stock of where they were.” Levine, now the Yankees’ president, added, “It led to the good-faith bargaining that produced revenue sharing, the luxury tax and interleague play.”

Sotomayor couldn’t will the owners and players to come to a quick agreement or prevent some old tensions from rising. But an agreement was finally reached more than a year later, in late November 1996. And there have been no work stoppages since.

What kind of red-blooded American could oppose the judge who saved baseball?


Visit this blog's homepage.

RIP: Jay Bennett

As anyone who saw "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart" knows, Jay Bennett was booted out of Wilco just as they were about to explode into the pop mainstream with "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot."

For my tastes, Bennett was an integral part of two far more entertaining Wilco projects -- "Being There" and "Mermaid Avenue" (in collaboration with Billy Bragg).

Those are two of my favorite recordings of the 1990s.

Jay Bennett, 45, died in his sleep this past weekend. I learned of it while watching the Chicago Cubs versus Pittsburgh Pirates on WGN tonight. To honor Bennett, the team played some Wilco songs between innings.

Sad news, but great tunes.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Best Hitchcock?

Last night, my wife and I watched "Family Plot" with our teenage daughters. Alfred Hitchcock's last film is OK, but far from his greatest. Back in 1988-1989, when my wife and I lived briefly in California with a brand new VCR (we bought the floor model to save money), we watched a lot of Hitchcock movies.

Here's how I'd rank the top 10 Hitchcock films:

1. Rear Window (1954): Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly co-star in an excellent thriller.

2. North by Northwest (1959): this is one of my favorite films starring Cary Grant. The crop dusting scene is a bit of a stretch, keeping it from the top spot.

3. Psycho (1960): This would rank higher for many viewers, but I prefer suspense to horror and this one is closer to the latter.

4. Dial M for Murder (1954): the premise is odd. Who could be unhappily married to Grace Kelly?

5. Notorious (1946): Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman and subterfuge.

6. Rope (1948): It's creepy. You knew Jimmy Stewart would be terrific -- but Farley Granger?

7. The Lady Vanishes (1938): Some parts are dated, to be sure, but it has mystery and comedic elements. We saw this film recently on local public television.

8. Lifeboat (1944): I watched this alone recently and enjoyed it a great deal. Tallulah Bankhead was perfect as someone you wouldn't want on a lifeboat.

9. Strangers on a Train (1951): I haven't seen this in a long time, or it would probably rank higher. I also want to read the book, which was strongly recommended to me by a friend.

10. Vertigo (1958): To me, this is the most overrated Hitchcock film. The first half is strong, but the movie loses me towards the end.

Honorable mention:

To Catch a Thief (1955): this is lightweight, but I really like Cary Grant and Grace Kelly -- even when they play familiar (and somewhat unbelievable) characters.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943): It might belong on the top 10 list, but I haven't seen it in many years. To be sure, Joseph Cotton made some terrific movies ("The Third Man" and "Citizen Kane," for example).


Visit this blog's homepage.

Obama v. Cheney

Yesterday, both President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney gave speeches about terrorism, torture and national security. If you didn't watch them and don't have time or inclination to read them -- I'd advise watching this 100 second video mashup courtesy of the people at Talking Points Memo:



Visit this blog's homepage.

Ducking in

Today, at the Duck of Minerva group international relations blog, I posted "Ire of Newt." Former Speaker of the House Gingrich is calling for the head of successor Nancy Pelosi because of her accusing the CIA of lying about what they told her about waterboarding in 2002. I reveal the frequent occasions when Newt himself has called out the CIA and State Department during wartime.

Yesterday, I posted "KSM: NIMBY?" which is about the hullabaloo surrounding the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. KSM is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. NIMBY = "not in my backyard."

Wednesday, April 29, I posted "Neorealists as Critial Theorists: Film Edition." I examined the favorite IR films of Harvard academic (and blogger) Stephen Walt in light of my film class (and work on "comedy of global politics").

Tuesday, April 28, I posted "The flu: context," which discussed the broad human security implications of the flu in an ordinary year (without swine flu).


Visit this blog's homepage.

Supreme Court

Who will be the next Supreme Court justice? I do not know the answer to that question, but I do know that President Obama will soon name someone to replace the outgoing Justice David Souter. Meanwhile, read this to remind yourself why these decisions are so important:

In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, [John] Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than [Justice Antonin] Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

That line is from Jeffrey Toobin's excellent profile of Roberts in the May 25 issue of The New Yorker. Check it out.

By the way, the "crowd" at Intrade seems to think the next Justice is likely to be Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer, or Diane Pamela Wood.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Primary objective? Oil security

Here's another item that I forgot to blog in 2008. From Naomi Klein's piece in The Nation, July 21/28, 2008:

Several of the architects of the Iraq War no longer even bother to deny that oil was a major motivator. On National Public Radio's To the Point, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi advisor to the State Department in the lead-up to the invasion, recently described the war as "a strategic move on the part of the United States of America and the UK to have a military presence in the Gulf in order to secure [oil] supplies in the future." Chalabi, who served as Iraq's oil under secretary, described this as "a primary objective."

You can hear Chalabi say these things yourself yourself at the KCRW website. I can confirm Klein's account.

To provide an up-to-date take on this issue, consider that declining oil prices reduce Iraq's ability to defend itself. That's fairly important since the U.S. certainly wants to leave Iraq in the hands of a stable and secure government.

Additionally, oil remains a potential major area of dispute among Iraq's sectarian communities. Recently, as Reuters reported, the Oil Ministry denied efforts by the "largely autonomous Kurdish region" to export petroleum from oil fields in northern Iraq. Optimists want you to believe that this problem can be resolved peacefully, though licenses granted to private oil companies to develop new oil fields are being called "illegal."


Visit this blog's homepage.

The Princeton Project

In The Nation May 4, David Milne argued that the recent report prepared by the Princeton Project on National Security may one day have tremendous influence on foreign policy in the new Democratic administration --comparable to the influence often attributed to the 1997 neoconservative report by the Project for a New American Century.

future historians may identify [the Princeton Project] as a blueprint for President Obama's foreign policy--in the same way that the 1997 Project for the New American Century foretold the direction of the Bush administration.

I'm not sure that's true, but it's something to think about when preparing a new course on U.S. foreign policy.

Here's a good press synopsis of the report's view of US grand strategy:

The new strategy seeks to absorb the rising powers like China, India, Brazil and others into a law-based global economic and diplomatic structure that avoids open conflict by making them stakeholders within the system, and thus encouraged in their own interests to play by the rules...

The strategy they have devised, titled 'Liberty Under Law," seeks to chart of long-term course in the way that George F. Kennan in 1946 drafted the concept of "containment" that broadly defined U.S. policy in the Cold War for the next 45 years.

"The difference is that we soon came to realize that there is now no single threat as there was in 1946, so there can be no single theme like "containment," Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson school of public and international affairs and one of the directors of the project, and a former president of the American Society for International Law.

"There are now a series of threats, including global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, the rise of Asia, the energy crisis and threats emanating from the Middle East becoming too numerous to count," Slaughter added.

Slaughter is now the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.

The elite press noted Obama's link to the Princeton Project some 18 months ago.

Visit this blog's homepage.

File under "political hack"

Last Saturday, May 9, Senator Mitch McConnell gave the convocation address at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law. It created a small stir locally -- probably because the Senator did not shy away from controversial political subjects. And his take was purely partisan.

Of course, McConnell was also dead wrong on several key facts. For example, McConnell wants to pretend that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been unique evil-doers:

the current Administration has announced a deadline to close the secure detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within nine months—without having any kind of plan to contain these deadly killers.

“I hope it does not take that step without a plan to make America safer as a result. And I certainly hope it does not transfer these terrorists to American soil. Such a move will likely raise more legal questions than it settles. And it will increase the risk to the American people.

“The men housed at Guantanamo are ruthless killers.

Yet, as Ken Ballen and Peter Bergen reported last October, this is factually incorrect:

...according to the Pentagon itself, only 5 percent of detainees at the prison were ever apprehended by U.S. forces to begin with. And only another 4 percent were ever alleged to have actually been fighting at all.

Why is that? Almost all of the detainees were turned over to U.S. forces by foreigners, either with an ax to grind or, more often, for a hefty bounty or reward. After U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in late 2001, they doled out rewards of about $5,000 or more to Pakistanis and Afghans for each detainee turned over. Contrary to standard law enforcement practice, the U.S. military accepted the uncorroborated allegations of the award claimants with little independent investigation.

Now, under much pressure, the Pentagon has released more than 500 detainees over the past three years ...new statistics provided to us by the Ministry of Interior in Riyadh, zero of the 121 Guantánamo detainees received by the Saudis were deemed dangerous and ineligible for release.

It gets worse. Of those detainees returned to Saudi Arabia from Guantánamo, more than half have been released and are now free, most after spending a period of time in a halfway house designed to promote a smooth return to society. Only six former Guantánamo detainees have been rearrested in Saudi Arabia for any reason—an astonishingly low recidivism rate of less than 9 percent among those released.

Although the Saudi efforts to reintegrate these prisoners into society are certainly commendable, the only reasonable explanation for such a low recidivism rate is that the detainees were never guilty of terrorist acts in the first place.

Don't want to take the word of the Saudis? Consider this:

Information released in May by the Department of Defense further buttresses the Saudi findings of a very low recidivism rate. The department’s list of named released detainees who have subsequently engaged in militant or terrorist activities anywhere in the world shows that 12 have done so, a recidivism rate of just 2 percent. In fact, the Pentagon can cite only six instances in which an inmate released from Guantánamo actually took up arms against the United States.

...new statistics from the Saudi Ministry of Interior, corroborated by the Pentagon’s own findings, show that the overwhelming majority of individuals detained at Guantánamo not only were not terrorists, but were likely innocent of any crime.

McConnell also played fast and loose with the facts about the interrogation memos recently declassified by the Obama administration:

It was a mistake for the administration to reveal to al Qaeda terrorists the interrogation methods they can expect to face if captured. Releasing those memos has made America less safe.

As I've blogged before, scholars have been studying American torture techniques for years. They are well-known already.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel pointed out that the Bush administration had already disclosed most of the techniques:

Let me say this, one of the reasons the president was willing to let this information out was that much of the information was already out. So if they're saying that you've basically exposed something, it's been written . Go get the New York Review of books. It's there. So the notion that somehow we're exposing something -- it's already out. In fact President Bush let a lot, a lot of this information out. So the notion that somehow this is all of a sudden a game-changer, doesn't take cognizance that its already in the system and in the public domain. Therefore, it's not new.

If you don't believe Emanuel, look at this article in the October 4, 2007, NY Times. Or this piece from June 2004 in the NY Review of Books.

Numerous Bush officials were questioned about waterboarding by Congress over the past few years, especially after the November 2006 Democratic victory. John Kerry opposed Bush Attorney General Mike Mukasey over this issue in 2007.


Visit this blog's homepage.