On Right-Wing Violence

Yet another shooting spree makes the news: this time in DC, at the Holocaust Museum. It should surprise no-one that the suspected shooter is identified as someone who thinks the Holocaust was a good thing.

ThinkProgress and Washington Monthly both have posts on this latest event. In the latter, Steve Benen states:

There are key differences between violent right-wing radicals and mainstream Americans who happen to be conservative.

I have to take issue with his statement. The mainstream of US conservatism may not be ready to run out and create the kind of mayhem reported of late, but the tone of the rhetoric that has predominated conservative spheres of late has at least been of apologist tones for such incidents if not overtly supportive of such attacks. There has been no-one in the group Benen presumes to exist who has denounced the violence in any believable fashion, called for an end to such assaults on such targets or taken any truly meaningful action to end the cycle. The closest we have heard to date is the sort of "horrifically regrettable necessity" language used by the far right to subliminally defend a "by any means necessary" approach to achieving their goals.

If "mainstream Americans who happen to be conservative" expect to maintain any respectability in the wake of the Tiller murder and today, they need to be more obvious in their distancing themselves - in deed as well as in speech - from the advocates of the recent violence. Without such steps, the acquiescing silence of such individuals will only reinforce the fringe's impression that their actions are condoned, and will encourage more such lunatics to indulge in similar violent episodes.

Isn't It Too Cold For That?

Dateline Augusta, Maine.

A topless coffee shop, the Grand View (I'm still chuckling over that) in Vassalboro (just outside Augusta, the state capital) burned on the night of 2 June.

The daring business was unpopular with its neighbors, but apparently did a brisk business with clientele from the capital and surrounding communities. It was not insured.

In today's Kennebec Journal is a report that the investigation has confirmed that the fire was deliberately set. It also highlights some very interesting timing:

The fire came just four-and-a-half hours after [Grand View owner Donald] Crabtree had finished a meeting Tuesday night with the Vassalboro Planning Board.

Crabtree outlined proposals to extend the shop's hours of operations to 1 a.m., expand the parking lot for employees and have its wait staff dancing to the music of a disc jockey. Crabtree had wanted to expand the business into a strip club, but he had scaled back those plans Tuesday night to avoid needing a new permit.

The timing of the fire has left Crabtree with troubling questions.

"What gets me is, why now? Why not when we opened? Why is the time now? I don't know," Crabtree said.

I'm at once surprised that straight-laced Maine would allow such a business anywhere (with the possible exception of Old Orchard Beach) and disturbed that anyone would think that burning down a business would solve the perceived problem.

And I'm stunned that anywhere in Maine is temperate enough for topless anything.

H/T Petulant at Shakesville.

Owning the Hatred

There are a lot of discussions out there about Scott Roeder, the man held in the murder of Dr. Tiller. Hilzoy, Friedersdorf, Balkin, MB and others bring up many good points about how to deal with a non-Muslim, domestic, Caucasian terrorist. Whether we deal with this incident within the sphere of the GWoT or as a matter of conventional criminal proceedings has become, thanks to the broad definitions applied to the former approach, a valid question.

My primary concern is less how to handle Roeder than how to handle those with whom he associated.

There is considerable evidence that Roeder was affiliated with at least one fairly militant fringe group with anti-choice sympathies (among other Conservatist positions). There is also some evidence that these groups did not entirely share Roeder's perspective, and may well have been less extreme as a whole. While they clearly were not active participants in Sunday's tragedy, they are clearly implicated as influences on Roeder's state of mind if not his precise actions.

Assuming the GWoT methodologies are appropriate, these groups with whom Roeder associated are implicated as condoning or supporting terrorism on US soil. They provided him with inflammatory literature, support - however conditional - for his views, and a forum for his extremism.

Naturally, the less-unhinged among the groups will instantly disavow Roeder and the worst of the militancy of their own group as outside the main of their organisations. That does not excuse them for failing to rein in Roeder and the others, failing to report Roeder to the authorities, or any of a hundred other steps they could have taken to prevent Tiller's murder. And those claims are already refuted by the leadership of larger organisations such as Operation Rescue - who, while denouncing the killing itself, are actively advocating nearly anything short of that to shut down clinics like the one where Dr. Tiller practised.

To those of us for whom the GWoT is an abomination of illegal, inhuman sadism, our chief difficulties have always been at once the Othering of the assailants and the perceived immediacy of the threat. Prior to September 11, 2001 there was only one successful attack by Muslim terrorists on US soil, and there have been none since, so regardless for the reasoning for such the potential of that threat is substantially reduced. Conversely, attacks on one segment of the US population by another, or on one organisation by members of another, are multiple: post-Katrina New Orleans is a prime example - and so is the murder of a physician in a church on a Sunday during worship. Consider that in each of the cases the community of victims goes far beyond the individuals directly impacted: the entire African American community of Louisiana has been effectively traumatised by the experience of New Orleans, and Dr. Tiller's entire parish was present to witness his killing and are equally affected. And in the cases of domestic activity in these cases, it is nearly impossible to Other the assailants: they look like Middle America, and the only thing differentiating them from the rest of the populace is their willingness - even eagerness - to use violence to achieve their ends.

Illustrating how the GWoT has been misused against innocent US citizens has been ineffective to date: the rage to vengeance of the early Noughties swept aside any arguments against the Great Misadventure. But these new events are hitting far closer to home: the mass killing of "liberals" at a Unitarian church, and now the "execution" of a physician at his church during Sunday services are beginning to resonate as beyond defensible to the point that GWoT-scale response may be justified.

This is how the scope of the GWoT broadens, and why it is dangerous to declare war on an intangible. I am not fond of the anti-choice movement in the least; but the fact that we can lump the violent fringe of the anti-choice community in the same "terrorist" bundle with the aparently intended targets of the GWoT shows just how dangerous the GWoT is both in concept and in execution. Tiller's murderer deserves the most thorough investigation, the most able prosecution - but also the most able defense; and the organisations that aided and abetted the party responsible for Tiller's death deserve careful scrutiny and sharp criticism, but no more than that if we even pretend to cherish the freedom of speech and assembly outlined in the Constitution. On the other hand, without a clearer illustration of just how excessive the GWoT is by definition, it may be instructive for those who advocate it to experience its application closer to home.

Of course there are threats to the peace and security of the US, both at home and abroad: these are the reasons we have law enforcement, intelligence agencies, alliances and treaties, Interpol and a host of other resources available to us. Those resources ought to be exhausted first. Failing to do so leaves us with the very real possibility that any one of us could be branded with the "threat to the Republic" language the GWoT employs and treated the same as GWoT detainees now in custody. We're supposed to be better than that.

What You Get For Your Law Enforcement Tax Dollar

First, comes the story of an ISP raided by the FBI - with, so far, no indication given as to cause or consequence (outside shutting down the provider's datacenter for the time being).

Second, there's an interesting article on how Utah is funding a programme to help its officers sweat out their crystal meth habits.

Third is an item on how two drunk sheriffs here in Tampa Bay who were let go after what would have been a DUI traffic stop.

And last is the tale of a Texas police chief who tasered his wife.

I have the greatest respect for law enforcement in general. But I've had less than pleasant encounters with them in the past, most notably an assault I witnessed in California where the PD arrested the victim instead of the assailant. So while I'm willing to give them the benefit of at least some doubt, these stories taken together tell a tale of presumed privilege and police-state practices that make one shudder. And while these are taken from a variety of US national sources, their relative immediacy - all in the last six months, and three of them in the last week - is alarming.

H/T Wolfrum.

What Would You Suggest?

There is growing demand for accountability from the prior [mal]administration. Congress is finally hinting that it may investigate the Bush policies of the past and assess whether charges should be preferred. After the spectacular failures, missteps and overextension of authority and expenditures, something surely needs to be done.

But apparently not everyone thinks that accountability is a valuable component to public service.

David Rivkin and Lee Casey have penned a remarkable opinion (on TBO.com and credited as published in the Washington Post though it does not appear in that publication) claiming that an investigation such as those being considered is harmful to US institutions. Titled "Pouring Acid On Democracy," the article details consequences such as international criminal prosecution for those indicted by the proposed inquiries, and claims that the investigations would be counter to US democratic processes and theory of government.

The article goes to great lengths to imply broadly that the investigations are bad and should not be allowed to proceed. The authors invoke two demons: international prosecution and the legal circus of the special investigation. Yet they make little mention of the causes for public concern here, and their twin terrors have proven remarkably toothless.

The article makes absolutely no mention of what the authors would consider appropriate processes to address the horrific record of the Bush administration. There is no mention of conventional investigation, available legal processes or indeed any remedy of any kind. Apparently the authors think we're all better off simply forgetting the last eight years and moving forward, allowing the precedents set to stand unchallenged.

International criminal proceedings against those found culpable is a clear fear the authors share. Yet the International Criminal Court is at present weak and without solid enforcement, in no small part because of the US' failure to recognize the body and provide it support. The Obama administration and the current Congress seem inclined to change that stance, but at the present there is no means for a US citizen to be brought to ICC justice, and more than a few laws on US books allowing extraordinary intervention in ICC affairs to protect accused US citizens. Even if it were possible, the article makes no allowance for assertion of US jurisdiction or national sovereignty, which would almost certainly be preferred in this case; and as the US would be investigating and prosecuting its own citizens, that would take precedence over ICC proceedings even if such would carry weight in the present domestic climate.

Also, the authors are obsessed with the bogeyman of the Special Prosecutor. Without mentioning the Starr prosecution by name, they recall the specter of the fruitless efforts of that commission to find fault with the Clinton administration, and imply that such an experience is what the US should expect from any such investigation. The Starr investigation, whatever its origins, devolved into a witch hunt: the determination to find something wrong with the Clinton administration overrode the legal aspects and its own moral imperative. Given the apparent wealth of evidence to assail Bush with war crimes, illegal and unconstitutional acts and general incompetence and negligence in perfoming the duties of the various offices, the likelihood that we would see such again is small. And with the only alternative being a discredited Department of Justice still paralyzed by its ideological evisceration of late, alternatives to such a process are at best very hard to find. Again, the authors seem to think that messy processes that threaten to spin out of control are counter to the democratic tradition.

Democracy is many things, including both robust and messy. The US has survived multiple constitutional crises, trials, disagreements and upsets, going back to the Jay court and the concept of judicial review. Rivkin and Casey seem to think that US democracy is too fragile to go through the indignities of investigation, and too weak on the global stage to assert jurisdiction in criminal matters with global implications.

The tone of their opinion suggests they would prefer to forget everything and move forward, and they bring up false examples of nebulous political horrors as proofs for halting the proposed investigations. Yet their examples are toothless: the one is a recourse for states where the offending persons or institutions are not brought to justice by their own nations (and even so are not as yet recognised by the US); the other a blatantly partisan effort, allowed to exceed its mandate out of petty political ambition, and not likely to be repeated.

US democracy does, however, depend on two things: transparency and accountability. For the nation to function properly its workings must be as public as possible, and those in positions of authority must be held responsible for that authority and disciplined if necessary. Rivkin and Casey would deny these two requirements, preferring ignorance and immunity to the real responsibilities of citizens in a democratic nation. The article is the eloquent complaint of the educated bully: the writers are apparently afraid that the mean-spirited bloodthirsty methods of the Right might be used against them now that real crimes are in evidence, and rather than face that they prefer to forget everything and behave as if nothing untoward happened in the last eight years.