There is little doubt that Jared Lee Loughner shot U. S. Representative Gabrielle Griffiths, a federal judge, a nine-year-old girl born on 9-11, killing the latter two. This occurred on Saturday morning, January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona. Current commentary is passionate and emotional. I am reminded of the “Rally to Restore Sanity” in November of 2010, sponsored by Jon Stewart. Some of the materials that restore sanity.
Link to Federal Indictment via Talking Points Memo showing probably cause to indict Jared Lee Loughner for attempted murder and murder of individuals serving in federal capacity, including Gabrielle Giffords, entered in federal court on Sunday evening after Saturday’s shootings. State charges await a Grand Jury, must be filed within 30 days.
Indictment of Jared Lee Loughner for murders, attempts to kill federal employees
The link below, via Daily Kos, assesses the legal implications (and explains the cool language that omits the “civilians” shot, except for a paragraph that acknowledges their deaths.
The Federal Indictment in the Giffords Shooting
In the aftermath of the shootings two days ago, I’m trying to wall off the commentaries and implied commentaries designed to amp up the emotions of horror and revulsion, without a concomitant call for sanity: a 9-year-old girl born on 9-11 dead; crazy talk-show rhetoric; saner columnists for the nytimes blaming Republican/Tea Party rhetoric; saner columnist for nytimes Opinionator recalling extremist rhetoric on both left and right. What we do now is mourn, what we do now is cool and collected, a matter of justice for federal and state courts.
Let us remember that the US gets some things wrong, and some things right. We hope that in this case, getting it right involves the FBI and the Judiciary, and the coolness of precedent and procedure.
Here is one news announcement, of discovery and denial and documentation:
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A diplomatic report revealing that the Canadian government has been aware that Afghan security forces have been torturing prisoners handed over to them by Canadian soldiers has caused outrage across the country.
PWW summary, accessed 5/11/07 — The full summary is suggested reading.
For a witty look at Gonzales’ testimony–as protective of Rove and Bush–see “Inside Alberto Gonzales’s Diary - My Dementia Defense” by Bernard Weiner at the blog Dissident Voice.
I would like to think that testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee is the last appearance of Alberto Gonzales on the public scene. The bumbling idiot on the witness stand portrayed by the New York Times editorial here, who did not know people, or dates, or times, or actions, surely is not long for the political world.
Is this the same Alberto Gonzales who has been the godfather of the new presidential right to torture? The same Alberto Gonzales who has been one of the crafters of the “imperial presidency?”
There are a couple of possibilities: that this is a man who relies heavily on the ideas and work of his staff. It is his staff that has made him look menacingly intelligent, in the case of the torture/imperial presidency material, and it is his staff that has made him look like a bumbling idiot on the witness stand.
<>I did watch some of his testimony, getting the ‘Anita Hill’ treatment from Senator Arlen Specter (R Sen. Pennsylvania). As a result, I concur with the NYTimes’s assessment.
<>Alberto Gonzales seems to have thoroughly outlived his value and usefulness to the Georgy W. Bush presidency. I think he has been kept on as a screen for Karl Rove. That is, to paraphrase the NYTimes, the larger effort is to work through the information that none of the senior administrators in the Justice Department knew from where the list of federal prosecutors to be fired came.
<>Until or unless there is a way to question Karl Rove, and obtain email records of his dealings, it is deviously important to keep Alberto Gonzales in office. Although, from his testimony, Gonzales is not responsible for the firings, his Office, the Office of the Attorney General, is responsible for the unjust action in the Department of Justice.
From the NYTimes review, published prior to tonight’s TV evocation of the torture and torture photographs, at Abu Ghraib in Iraq:
“Ghosts of Abu Ghraib” will appall and sadden viewers worried about human rights and international law. But it will be just as discouraging for those who believe that the danger posed by Al Qaeda trumps even those humanitarian concerns.
Abu Ghraib wasn’t just a moral failure, it was a strategic setback in the war against terror.
Again, that’s February 22, 2007 on HBO, 9:30 pm Eastern and Pacific time, 8:30 pm Central time.
There is more than one way to erode the freedom of the press guarantee of the Constitution’s First Amendment. As a reminder, this brief Amendment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment need not be eroded by Executive Branch subversion and challenges to the freedoms it grants. It can be eroded by the failure of the members of the press to investigate and report what they find. A single reporter faces enormous institutional pressures. These pressures come from major corporations that own broadcasting networks and newspaper facilities; from the routine, everyday sources for meeting deadlines; and from the “high-level” sources who, it is hoped, provide something new, however laden with spin. It is not easy to be a reporter, and it is even less easy to be an independent publisher of print media.
How this works is beautifully detailed in an article on the Media Matters website by Eric Boehlert, titled “Scooter Libby and the Media Debacle.” In careful prose he cites name after name of well-known reporters who were aware of the source of the information that Joseph Wilson, former Ambassador in Africa, had a wife who was an active undercover CIA agent, and that her name was Valerie Plame. In addition, some of these reporters knew that the story emanating from Libby and others in the Office of the Vice President was false. Their collective failures to report what they knew are carefully documented in Boehlert’s article, without flaming liberal prose.
In a similar vain, I have noted here Eric Umansky’s article in the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) on the U.S. record on torture, which asks “How Well Has the Press Covered Torture?”
<>The previous doctortwo comments on issues and articles connected with press freedom can be found under the titles “Press Freedom” and “Reason and Responsibility.”
<>The lack of press responsibility on the issues of compromising the CIA, and on torture, in the major, most used press outlets means that as citizens we have a heavy burden of due diligence. This burden is the time-consuming search for alternate news sources, and failing (or suspecting) those as well, for reporting on the newsmakers themselves, and the newsmaking process.
The role of President of the United States is the ultimate in the fantasy of political power. Legislators who are frustrated and disgusted by the process of producing laws, and further frustrated by an Imperial Executive who disdains to carry out the laws and directives of the legislative branch, look at the unrestrained power of the Chief Executive and wish to gain it for themselves. Of course, they will do different things with the power.
Others, the Arlen Specters and Ted Kennedys and Russ Feingolds and, dare I say it, Orrin Hatches, in the Senate have settled down to do what is within the power of the Senate to do. I hesitate to name members of the House of Representatives, other than Nancy Pelosi, because the frequency of scandal discourages me from endorsing particular members, lest they later be tainted by some misdeed or other. Nominations will be taken from the floor, on this.
<>The power of the Presidency is a different thing, somewhat unwritten, somewhat written, and perhaps unwriteable. In particular, since we (probably) will not use the power to impeach, this power can be self-defined. Because of the ambiguity in the role definition, which leads Presidents to define and redefine the Presidency, we are potentially and actually in the uncomfortable position of being citizens of a country governed by a Presidential fantasy.
<>For a further discussion of the definition of the Presidency, please see this article by Garrett Epps, in Salon.