Yesterday, I was thinking about TomCat and his amputation, because there is now another reader of PP who is going to have an amputation of one leg below the knee. He doesn’t comment, but he does get and read the Sunday emails. I’ll call him James, because that’s his first name. In hiis case, the amputation is necessitated because, after a bunch of years, the titanium rod and steel screws which were put in after an injury are still not working, and he has never been pain free since they were put in. He was denied SSDI so doesn’t have Medicare, and has had other personal issues, so has never been in a position to demand better care, as TomCat was when providers messed up. I asked for and received his permission to request prayers (and/or of course however you communicate with the universe), so I’m requesting.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
Crooks and Liars – Phoenix VA Predator Doc Faces 2nd Accusation—How Many More?
Quote – [T]he VA does not appear to have responded to everything MRFF asked for—specifically the “immediate and aggressive investigation” of Cheron. We know that because another veteran abused by Dr. Cheron, Stephen Brittle, has stepped forward after reading our earlier story. He had already lodged a similar complaint against Cheron before Rinsem’s case reached a crisis point. He, too, raised the prospect of Dr. Cheron “brow-beating other patients, given how he acted,” in a letter to the VA dated July 23. Click through for more. This is the same doctor named in a short take from August 24. Yes, MRFF is on it but how many more are there? And more to the point, how many veterans have died because of his fanaticism?
Axios – Study: Greenland ice melt will raise sea levels by nearly a foot
Quote – The study indicates that human-caused global warming driven by greenhouse gas emissions has effectively locked in a certain amount of sea level rise from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet…. The researchers estimated that the ice sheet will lose about 3.3% of its total volume within this century, which corresponds to 110 trillion metric tons of ice and an average global sea level rise of at least 270 millimeters, or 10.6 inches. Click through for more information. This is based on the assumption that human action causing warming were to stop immediately – and as we know, that isn’t happening. So it’s actually worse. And there’s 96.7% more of it to melt.
Glenn Kirschner – Compare: how DOJ is handling Trump’s classified documents crimes w/how DOJ handled another such case
Meidas Touch – BREAKING: Lindsey Graham calls for RIOTS if Trump is INDICTED (Appears Lindsey Graham is attempting to set up a game fo “Let’s you and him fight.”
Lincoln Project – We The people
Ojeda Live – Lock Him Up
HeyFletch – Hotel Mar-a-Lago — A Parody
Beau – Let’s talk about Biden’s student debt relief policy….
Yesterday, I woke up having slept through the night. I obviously needed that, but it’s not without disadvantages, chiefly related to the race to the bathroom. And I have never given birth – my heart really goes out to you ladies who have. I also made the appointmeny for my annual checkup, ordered a prescription renewal, and received a grocery delivery. That may sound busy, but actually was pretty quiet. The order had a few omissions, but no substitutions, so I was pleased.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance – The Week Ahead
Quote – There are a lot of unknowns when it comes to whether DOJ is going to indict the former president. The one clear piece of information we have is that DOJ is treating this as a serious criminal matter that will require a decision on whether to prosecute before it is complete. The case isn’t over just because DOJ has now retrieved the documents. We learned this in the legal memo DOJ filed last week. That memo accompanied the redacted search warrant Magistrate Judge Reinhart released last week. As Attorney General Garland has said repeatedly, DOJ doesn’t try its cases in the press. It speaks in court and through its pleadings. So, when DOJ files a pleading of this magnitude, it’s worth paying attention. Click through for article. Glenn Kirschner is irate about this, and it’s definitely fishy. Vance probably is too, but she provides less heat and more light here. The hearing is Thursday, September 1.
Slate – The Men Just Keep Talking
Quote – Long after the time had passed for male GOP officials to stop, to just stop, pretending they know or understand anything about female anatomy, reproductive organs, medical emergencies and basic preventative health care, they have continued to talk. They have continued to talk and talk and talk even when the massive blowback after the Dobbs decision proved it was an error;… Every time a Republican man opens his mouth to talk about women’s bodies, ten new female voters get their wings. Yet somehow, they cannot seem to stop themselves! Click through for story. And, if that doesn’t make you angry (or not angry enough), also check out this one.
Yesterday, I went to see Virgil, arriving about 11:00 am and staying until visitation was over at 3:30.We enjoyed each other’s company, and Virgil returns all greetings. This facility is ony about 35 miles away, mostly on the nterstateand Sundat traffic isn’t bad, so it was not difficult going or coming back. There was a rainstorm on the way back … some of it was heavy, but all of it was brief. They say in Colorado if you don’t like the weather, wait 5 minutes, but I think it’s more accurate to say move 5 miles. I’ve known a co-worker to have dry weather at home, while the weather is dry at th e workplace, and still not be able to get to work because, inbetween, there was impassible snow. But I digress. I got home safely, but found myself fresh out of energy. I did just manage to place a grocery delivery order and that was about it.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
The New Yorker – The Dangers of Trump-Prosecution Syndrome (opinion)
Quote – The legal process that the case is following illustrates the procedures in American jurisprudence that help to insure that prosecutors proceed methodically and fairly…. Legal experts and former Justice Department officials told me that, based on the publicly known evidence, prosecuting Trump for mishandling classified documents appears simpler than bringing criminal charges against him for his role in the January 6th storming of the U.S. Capitol. [Stephen] Gillers[, a professor of legal ethics at New York University,] [said] that, fairly or unfairly, prosecuting a former President requires meeting a higher legal and political threshold. “It has to be one-hundred-per-cent irresistible as a matter of law,” he said. “There can be no fact, no event, no piece of evidence that could support any room for ambiguity.” Click through for full article. I was thinking myself even before i started reading that the insurrection was far more obviously harmful but much harder to prove his criminal intent, whereas the mishandling of documents is easier to prove, but possibly harder to generate interest in. (The dates of his speaking with Putin, sending something in writing to Putin – delivered, I believe, by Rand Paul – and the daytes of our highest and most qualified agents starting to die off could possibly be coincidental – though I would not believe that for an instant.) I do think he should be charged for both, if for no other reason, because then the coase would not necessarily be tried in the federal district in which the crime was committed – since they are different.
The New York Times – Captured, Killed or Compromised: C.I.A. Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants
Quote – The message, in an unusual top secret cable, said that the C.I.A.’s counterintelligence mission center had looked at dozens of cases in the last several years involving foreign informants who had been killed, arrested or most likely compromised. Although brief, the cable laid out the specific number of agents executed by rival intelligence agencies — a closely held detail that counterintelligence officials typically do not share in such cables. The cable highlighted the struggle the spy agency is having as it works to recruit spies around the world in difficult operating environments. In recent years, adversarial intelligence services in countries such as Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan have been hunting down the C.I.A.’s sources and in some cases turning them into double agents. Click through – it is not paywalled, but is a gift link, so you will be able to read it in full with the possible exception of Lona – though she is good with VPNs. These events, not this specific article is what I was referring to in my comment on the other short take.
Glenn Kirschner – Newly unredacted DOJ memo reinforces Bill Barr’s coverup of Trump’s obstruction of justice crimes
Meidas Touch – Texas Law BACKFIRES and accidentally labels Republicans COMMUNISTS (Too funy. Beto accurately knows that “communist” is an economic term [and he isn’t one] – the Texas law isn’t a bad one, but it should have used the term “authotitarian,” or “insurrectionist” – overthrowing the governmetn has nothing to do with communism.)
Ring of Fire – Trump Has Epic Meltdown As Scandals Get Worse
Ojeda Live – The West is drying up!
Armageddon Update – “Stay In Your Lane!”
Beau – Let’s talk about Trump, Special Masters, and a new subpoena….
Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”
When one enters the military, one takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Not the government. Not the presideent. Not even the nation, but the Constitution. (The President comes into that oath, along with “officers appointed,” who are all to be obeyed, but with qualifications – “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Alawful order must be obeyed. An unlawful order must not. That’s not explicit in the oath, but it is in the UCMJ and in regulations.
This article discusses the application of the First Amendment to members of the military. It refers to the First Amendment applying to the military :in diluted form.” I see it just a little differently: to me, supporting and defending the Constitution, and also expressing ideas contrary to the Constitution, are simply not compatible. The Constitution is not a perfect document (nor is it perfectly executed), and it can be changed – but that is not the job of the military. Military are more than welcome to express their thoughts on the need for change to their elected representatives. Rationally. The same is not true of expressing their opinions on social media with threats of violence, or implied violence.
==============================================================
Faced with a rise of extremism within its ranks, the US military has clamped down on racist speech, including retweets and likes
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin speaks at a news briefing at the Pentagon on July 20, 2022. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Less than a month after the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin took the extraordinary step of pausing all operations for 24 hours to “address extremism in the ranks.” Pentagon officials had been shaken by service members’ prominent role in the events of Jan. 6.
Of the 884 criminal defendants charged to date with taking part in the insurrection, more than 80 were veterans. That’s almost 10% of those charged.
More remarkable, at least five of the rioters were serving in the military at the time of the assault: an active-duty Marine officer and four reservists.
Service members’ involvement in the insurrection has made the spread of extremism – particularly white nationalism – a significant issue for the U.S. military.
The group found about 100 substantiated cases of extremism in the U.S. armed forces in 2021.
The latest instance occurred in July 2022, when Francis Harker, a National Guard member with white supremacist connections, was sentenced to four years in prison for planning an anti-government attack on police. Harker, who carried a picture saying “there is no God but Hitler,” was planning to attack police officers in Virginia Beach, Virginia, with Molotov cocktails and semi-automatic rifles.
Worried, Austin has tightened the rules regarding political speech within the military. The new rules prohibit any statement that advocates for “violence to achieve goals that are political … or idealogical in nature.” The ban applies to members of the military both on and off duty.
Also, for the first time, the new rules prohibit statements on social media that “promote or otherwise endorse extremist activities.”
In light of the stricter policy, it is useful to consider how courts apply the First Amendment in the military context.
Good order and discipline
While soldiers and sailors are certainly not excluded from the protection of the First Amendment, it is fair to say they operate under a diluted version of it.
As one federal judge observed, the “sweep of the protection is less comprehensive in the military context, given the different character of the military community and mission.”
The “right to speak out as a free American” must be balanced against “providing an effective fighting force for the defense of our Country,” a federal judge noted in a separate case.
These and other federal judges point to the military’s need for good order and discipline in justifying this approach.
While never precisely defined, good order and discipline is generally considered being obedient to orders, having respect for one’s chain of command and showing allegiance to the Constitution. Speech that “prevents the orderly accomplishment of the mission” or “promotes disloyalty and dissatisfaction” within the ranks harms good order and discipline, and can be restricted.
In 1974, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the Army can punish an officer for encouraging subordinates to refuse to deploy.
The officer’s comments included: “The United States is wrong in being involved in the Vietnam War. I would refuse to go back to Vietnam if ordered to do so.”
In 1980, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Army could legally fire an ROTC cadet for making racist remarks during a newspaper interview.
Explaining his political philosophy, the cadet said: “What I am saying is that Blacks are obviously further behind the whites on the evolutionary scale.”
In 2012, a San Diego district court ruled that the Marine Corps can lawfully discharge a sergeant who mocked president Barack Obama while appearing on the “Chris Matthews Show.” At one point the sergeant told the host: “As an active duty Marine, I say screw Obama and I will not follow his orders.”
While each of these statements is protected by the First Amendment in civilian life, they crossed the line in military life because they were deemed harmful to morale and represented what one federal court described as more than “political discussion … at an enlisted or officers’ club.”
The military’s job is to fight, not debate
In deciding these First Amendment cases, courts often hark back to why the military exists in the first place.
“It is the primary business of armies and navies … to fight the nation’s wars should the occasion arise,” the Supreme Court said in 1955.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court declared: “An army is not a deliberate body. It is the executive arm. Its law is that of obedience.”
U.S. soldiers stand to attention at the United States Army military training base in Germany on July 13, 2022. Christof Stache/AFP via Getty Images
Quickly following orders can mark the difference between life and death in combat.
On a national level, the degree to which an army is disciplined can win or lose wars. A mindset of obedience does not come solely from classroom training but from repeated rehearsals under realistic conditions.
As a military judge observed in a 1972 decision, while service members are free to discuss political issues when off duty, the “primary function of a military organization is to execute orders, not to debate the wisdom of decisions that the Constitution entrusts” to Congress, the judiciary and the commander in chief.
New policy bans ‘liking’ extremist messages
The U.S. military’s revised approach to political speech prohibits retweeting or even “liking” messages that promote anti-government or white nationalist and other extremist groups.
Does a restriction this broad comply with legal precedent?
As a law professor who has served more than 20 years in the U.S military, I believe the broader rules will probably be upheld if challenged on First Amendment grounds.
The most comparable case is Blameuser v. Andrews, a 1980 case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where an ROTC cadet espoused white supremacist political views in a newspaper interview.
Amongst other extremist remarks, the cadet told the reporter: “You see, I believe that in the final analysis, the Nazi Socialist Party will take over America and possibly the whole world.”
Finding that the statements harmed good order and discipline, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Army did not violate the First Amendment when it subsequently removed him from the officer training program.
The cadet’s “views on race relations draw into question his ability to obey commands, especially in a situation in which he regards the military superior as socially inferior,” the Blameuser decision said.
The military has wide latitude in deciding who is deserving of the “special trust and confidence” that comes with military employment. Military officials are free to consider political and social beliefs that are “inimical to the vital mission of the agency” in making hiring and firing decisions, the Blameuser decision said.
Social media posts expressing support for violent political activities will likely be treated in the same way.
As the Seventh Circuit said in Blameuser, by liking or retweeting an extremist message, a service member’s actions are “demonstrably incompatible with the important public office” they hold.
==============================================================
AMT, I shared a Robert Reich article this week about right wing bullies – how long it took us to stand up to McCarthy – how the entire Republican Party has been affected – and, n general, why we are where we are. All that didn’t affect just out politics – it also affected our people. It turned many of them into bullies. A military filled with bullies is not our best defense against bullies. I fully support DoD’s efforts to retrain them and, if retraining is not possible, to remove them.
I also note that this article does not address religious bullying within the military, which is a related but different beast. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, founded and still led by Mikey Weinstein, continues to take that on.
Yesterday, the radio opera was “Manon Lescaut” by Puccini. (Massenet also wrote one on this story; his is called just “Manon.”) Puccini’s libretto specifies that Manon is transported to and dies in “The deserts of Louisiana,” a phrase which always makes me smile, and sometimes giggle. But today, it occurred to me that some day that conceivably might be accurate. Not in the New Orleans are, of course; that area is far more vulnerable to sea evel rise. But just possibly some of the northern/eastern parts. Of course, if that does happen, there likely won’t ba anyone left to sing the opera, let alone provide an audience for it. Any remaining humans will have other things on their minds. But I digress. Puccini’s version makes much more of Manon’s brother’s pimp-like actions, while Massenet’s stresses Manon’s re-seducing he former lover after he is ordained a priest (Puccini did not go there.) Both have some lovely highlights. Both (I think not consciously – it’s just the way things were) objectify Manon. Puccini’s last line (reanslated) is “This is the end of Manon Lescaut,” and I’ll also stop and move on.
Today’s FFT is one I put together, but the idea is not original to me – it’s based on a comment made on a Crooks & Liars article. I would like to have shown a litter of kittens, but this was the best I could come up with on short notice.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
The White House – Breakthroughs for All: Delivering Equitable Access to America’s Research
Quote – To tackle this injustice, and building on the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to advance policy that benefits all of America, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released new policy guidance [Thursday, 8/25] to ensure more equitable access to federally funded research. All members of the American public should be able to take part in every part of the scientific enterprise—leading, participating in, accessing, and benefitting from taxpayer-funded scientific research. That is, all communities should be able to take part in America’s scientific possibilities. Click through for official memo. I found this out through Democratic Underground, and have not seen it elsewhere,. Just – Wow.
Crooks & Liars – Guess Who’s Behind Trump’s Resistance To Handing Over Documents
Quote – Fitton, the longtime head of the legal activist group Judicial Watch, had a simple message for Trump — it was a mistake to give the records to the Archives, and his team should never have let the Archives “strong-arm” him into returning them, according to three sources familiar with the matter. Those records belonged to Trump, Fitton argued, citing a 2012 court case involving his organization that he said gave the former President authority to do what he wanted with records from his own term in office. Click through for story. This also appears to be a scoop. If you wondered how he got the cockamamie idea that those documents belonged to him, here’s your answer.
