Secret U.S. endorsement of severe interrogations

In today's New York Times:

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

The above is just the first few paragraphs of the first of five pages in the Times. The article goes on to point out multiple instances of the White House saying one thing then secretly doing another, including re-opening CIA "black sites" for "enhanced interrogation techniques." The article ends with a quote from John D. Hutson, "the Navy's top lawyer from 1997 to 2000":

“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” he asked.

The White House's tap-dancing response to this Times article can be found here.

Bob McCarty suppresses the truth

Bob McCarty, a religious conservative writer, came to my attention for the first time recently when he touted Lauren Green's historical revisionism about the United States, in response to the Kathy Griffin Emmy controversy. When I and others posted comments on his blog pointing out Green's errors, McCarty accused me of "anti-Christian revisionist history," cited some quotes from Thomas Jefferson which made reference to "God," and stated that "I don’t have to read any more books about American history to know that this country was founded on Christian principles and values. Think 'In God we trust' and 'One nation under God.'"

In response to this latter point, I posted a comment which pointed out that those two phrases don't support McCarty's case regarding the founding of the United States and that Jefferson, while a believer in God, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. McCarty didn't approve my comment, so I posted again to see if it was intentional:

Bob: You didn't approve/publish my previous comment responding to your Sep. 15 comment. I'll try again.

Your citation of "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" as evidence of the U.S. being founded on Christian principles shows your lack of research--the former did not appear on coins until 1854 and on currency until 1957. The phrase "under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

I also suggested you read more of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, including his letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 10, 1787, in which he wrote "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Oh, and I also recommended that you check out the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Congress and signed by President John Adams, which contains the statement that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Tripoli violated the treaty and a new treaty was negotiated in 1805 without that language, but it is significant that both the Senate and President approved that language.

In my first pass at a comment, I also referred to the "Jefferson Bible," a version of the gospels which Jefferson produced by (in part) removing all of Jesus' miracles.

Once again, McCarty didn't approve the comments, demonstrating that he's intentionally suppressing refutation of his ignorant statements. It's his kind of dishonesty that can persuade people to believe that Christianity survives only by hiding from facts and promoting the view that "reason is the enemy of faith."

How much animal euthanization is unnecessary?

Maricopa County Animal Care and Control and the Arizona Humane Society regularly euthanize animals, not just because they are terminally ill, critically injured beyond the possibility of saving, or displaying uncorrectable aggressive behavior, but to make space for more owner turn-ins. (Another group which regularly engages in euthanasia of healthy animals is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a group which is very good at getting free publicity, raising funds, and polarizing opinions, but not particularly good at directly improving the welfare of actual animals. On occasion they indirectly improve the welfare of animals when they successfully stop cases of severe abuse.)

Tuesday's San Francisco Chronicle reports on the content of Nathan Winograd's Redemption: The Myth of Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America, a book which claims that there isn't a dog and cat overpopulation problem or lack of demand for them as pets, but that most animal control and animal shelter operations are simply not taking the most effective steps to care for their animals. Winograd's book and his organization, the No Kill Advocacy Center, argues that by using effective volunteer animal fostering programs and behavior rehabilitation programs, and partnering with local animal rescue groups, there should be no need to euthanize any healthy, adoptable animals. He's not just talking about it, he's successfully done it as director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA and for a rural animal shelter in upstate New York.

The No Kill Advocacy Center promotes the "No Kill Equation," a set of ten programs that it identifies as mandatory for any animal control or shelter operation to reduce euthanasia to a minimum:

I. Feral Cat TNR Program

II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter

III. Rescue Groups

IV. Foster Care

V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs

VI. Pet Retention

VII. Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation

VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement

IX. Volunteers

X. A Compassionate Director

I recommend reading the SF Chronicle's coverage of Winograd's book. If you're a supporter of your local animal shelters and animal control operations and they engage in euthanasia to make space for new animals, they deserve to be asked pointed questions about what they're doing along the lines of Winograd's recommendations.

RESCUE, an organization that we volunteer for, is an organization committed to reducing euthanasia of dogs and cats by taking animals from the Maricopa County Animal Care and Control euthanasia lists and keeping them in foster homes or boarding until they can be adopted out to someone who's a good match for the pet based on the pet's behavior and adopter's lifestyle.

(Hat tip to Jack Kolb on the SKEPTIC list for posting the article about Winograd's book. Thanks, Jack.)

Zion Oil and Gas

What happens when you rely on the Bible (compounded by even misunderstanding that) instead of oil geology to decide where to drill for oil...

McCain hasn't read the Constitution?

In an interview with Beliefnet, Arizona Sen. John McCain said that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation:

A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?
I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

Apparently he, like Rep. Ron Paul, missed the fact that the only reference to God in the U.S. Constitution is the reference to the "year of our Lord" in the date. The Constitutional Convention voted not to open with prayers, Article VI says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," and the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Constitution establishes a democratic republic with a strong separation of church and state by comparison to other nations. The Bible, by contrast, speaks of theocratic political systems with rule by priests and kings.

In 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified and President John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 of which began with the words "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (This treaty was quickly violated by Tripoli, and the renegotiated treaty of 1805 did not contain this article, but the important point is that this language was approved by the entire Senate and the President in 1797.)

Higley school district official stops Shakespearean play in progress

Higley, Arizona School District director of visual and performing arts Tara Kissane stopped a performance of "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)" for 6th to 12th graders in mid-performance because she thought the content was "inappropriate and not a kind of performance that we want them to see."

The performance, by Windwood Theatricals of New York, was attended by students who chose to pay $5 for a voluntary field trip to see it at the Higley Center for the Performing Arts. Kissane interrupted it 40 minutes in, but declined to identify what specifically she found to be "inappropriate." She said that "I thought it was great for college-aged students ... I just thought it was over some of our kids' heads and it wasn't appropriate for our kids. If I'm going to err on the side of anything, I'm erring on the side of caution."

Erring on the side of stupidity, she should have said. So what if it was "over some of our kids' heads"? What about those who were getting something out of it? Why deprive those children on behalf of the lowest common denominator?

Ernie and Bert do Casino

(Thanks, Jami!)

Crucifolks, "Reason is the enemy of faith"

From the Adult Swim series "Moral Orel," a song by the Crucifolks, "Reason is the Enemy of Faith":

Reason is the enemy of faith, my friend
A head that's filled with knowledge
soon is too bloated with its own weight
to fit through heaven's gate
So think with your heart
it's the only organ for salvation
think with your heart
don't deduce yourself to eternal damnation
think with your heart
'cause you know that the almighty sees us
think only with your heart
whoever heard of the bleeding brain of Jesus?
think only with your heart

More on Moral Orel here.

UPDATE (October 4, 2007): The comments on this post got way off track from what this song is saying, with olvlzl riding his own hobbyhorses to the extent that I think he completely missed the point. When he says to me, "If you don't agree with the song lyrics, I'm glad to hear it," I can only wonder if he bothered to read them. The lyrics are parody, expressing an extreme Christian anti-intellectualism that sees not only education but reason itself as something evil and in opposition to faith that must be avoided at all costs. Of course I disagree with that, as does anyone who values reason. What makes it funny is the extreme to which it takes the view--but what makes it disturbing is that there are anti-intellectual Christians who see knowledge and attempting to seek it as evil practices. They are the sort who say that all the knowledge they need is in the Bible (and these are often the King James Version only sorts, as well), so there is no need to read anything else.

olvlzl, by contrast, is looking at the reverse position, that there is no need for faith. But that's not what the song is about, or what "Moral Orel" is about.

Onward Christian soldiers

Jeremy Hall, an atheist soldier stationed in Iraq, attempted to form a meeting of his fellow atheists, after receiving permission to do so from an Army chaplain. That meeting occurred on August 7, and was attended by Hall's supervisor, Major Freddy J. Welborn, 44, an evangelical Christian who broke up the meeting and threatened to charge Hall with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as to block Hall's reenlistment if the group continued to meet.

Hall filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon and Welborn for injunctive relief to prevent such unconstitutional abuses.

In response to his lawsuit, Hall has been assaulted by fellow soldiers and threatened on blogs with being killed by friendly fire. (There have been some allegations, not substantiated to my knowledge, that Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire may have been the result of his outspoken atheism.)

Welborn, who was initially misidentified in the lawsuit as Paul Welbourne, was tracked down via his MySpace page, a visual monstrosity which says that he is a member of the "Department of Eternal Affairs," his primary occupation is "Bible Study," he has a Bachelor's Degree from Tennessee Temple University with a major in "Pers. Evangelism" and minor in "Biblical Worldview," and he attended Tara High School from 1976 to 1983. (In fairness to Welborn, the heading says that the school information is for "MAJ Freddy & HIS Girl," so the dates probably include "his girl"'s high school career along with his own, rather than indicating that he took seven years to get through high school.)

The U.S. military has had a serious problem with Christian evangelicals who don't understand what freedom of religion means. Earlier this year, the Pentagon Inspector General's office issued a report that officers who appeared in uniform in a recruiting video for Christian Embassy, a group that promotes Bible studies by senior government officials, violated military rules by doing so. Two years ago, evangelical Christians proselytizing at the Air Force Academy led to a review of the Air Force rule for chaplains which says that there can be no proselytizing those of other religious faiths, but it's perfectly acceptable to proselytize to "those who are not affiliated." A lawsuit against this evangelizing was thrown out of court last year, but the rule for chaplains with the double standard was revoked.

More on the Hall and Christian Embassy cases may be found at the Questionable Authority blog, as well as the links in this post.

UPDATE (March 7, 2008): Hall has updated his complaint to include a charge that he has had a promotion blocked because of his unwillingness to "put aside his personal convictions and pray with the troops."

UPDATE (July 10, 2008): The government has filed a motion to dismiss (at the last available moment to do so), arguing that Hall lacks standing to sue and did not take advantage of all available remedies within the military to pursue his complaint before suing.

UPDATE (April 26, 2008): The New York Times has now covered this story. (About time!)

UPDATE (April 28, 2008): Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars asks the question of why Hall had to be transferred out of Iraq for his own safety, rather than the commanding officers telling the troops to leave him alone or be punished.

UPDATE (October 18, 2008): Hall has withdrawn his lawsuit on the grounds that he will soon be out of the military and suspects the case will be dismissed for lack of standing once he's out. A second case filed by Dustin Chalker will continue.

9/11 Truther returns to reality

Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany, has abandoned the 9/11 Truth movement and returned to reality after actually starting to listen to the debunkings and think about the evidence and the methods of argument used. He's posted a letter explaining his change of heart.

Good for him.

I've yet to see a 9/11 Truther actually attempt to systematically address the content of any of the critiques, nor put together a scenario that even attempts to be a comprehensive explanation of the events leading up to and including the 9/11 attacks (such as the actions of Osama bin Laden and the hijackers, described in the 9/11 Commission Report, Gerald Posner's Why America Slept, James Bamford's A Pretext for War, and elsewhere). Instead, their methodology resembles that of creationists and Holocaust deniers--identifying apparent inconsistencies, and constructing a fantasy around them without any regard for the enormous collection of facts at hand. Their defense then becomes progressively more delusional attempts to explain away the contrary facts that they've not bothered to address.

The "Screw Loose Change" annotated version of the "Loose Change" 2nd edition video may be found here.