Thinky posts

[unusualmusic_lj_archive]

The suppressed fact:Death by US torture

The interrogation and detention regime implemented by the U.S. resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in U.S. custody -- at least. While some of those deaths were the result of "rogue" interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods authorized at the highest levels of the Bush White House, including extreme stress positions, hypothermia, sleep deprivation and others. Aside from the fact that they cause immense pain, that's one reason we've always considered those tactics to be "torture" when used by others -- because they inflict serious harm, and can even kill people. Those arguing against investigations and prosecutions -- that we Look to the Future, not the Past -- are thus literally advocating that numerous people get away with murder.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Awhile back, Digby wrote she feels the torture debate slipping away. I'd like to try and put this in context. This was always going to be tough. It is a fight worth fighting, but nowhere in the world has the still potent previous ruling order ever rolled over and taken their lumps for the crimes they committed while in power without a massive fight. While we may make references to Nuremburg, the most important difference there was that the Nuremburg trials were an act of imposing international law on Germany and Japan after conquering them. This is an attempt to have domestic law enforcement mechanisms go after the leaders of the previous government for their official policy. In the US, I don't believe such a thing has been done. Worldwide, it isn't so common either. MORE

For abydosangel

Dissenting Justice on the DOMA Brief, Part I: The Politics

Politics of the Brief
Politically, the submission of the brief will further erode trust for the Obama administration among GLBT individuals. During the Democratic Primaries and in the general election campaign, President Obama expressed passionate disagreement with DOMA and vowed to seek its repeal. Yet, in the first case requiring his administration to comment on the constitutionality of DOMA, Obama has defended it as a rational law that does not violate any constitutional norms. Accordingly, the brief represents a betrayal by Obama on his pledge of support for GLBT rights and regarding his specific opposition to DOMA.

A closer examination of Obama's record, however, demonstrates that Obama has not always held a consistent position on DOMA -- a fact Dissenting Justice first examined in March 2009. For example, when Obama ran for the Senate in 2004, he wrote a letter to the Windy City Times (a Chicago GLBT newspaper), which states that he opposed DOMA when it was enacted in 1996. In 2003, however, Obama completed a candidates' questionnaire and stated that he did not support the repeal of DOMA. In 2007, a campaign spokesperson for Obama explained that he changed his mind after "gay friends" told him how hurtful DOMA was to them. Of course, Obama could not have intellectually opposed DOMA in 1996, supported it in 2003, and suddenly opposed it again in 2004. Instead, his conflicting stances are likely motivated purely by political calculations.

Today, Obama is engaging the exact same song and dance regarding DOMA. Although he maintains that he supports the repeal of this "hurtful" law, his administration has defended it as legally rational legislation. This position is patently absurd.MORE

Dissenting Justice on the DOMA Brief, Part II: The Legal Arguments

Standard Full Faith and Credit Analysis or Equating Same-Sex Marriage and Incest?
The Constitution requires states to give "Full Faith and Credit. . .to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. . . ." Based largely on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, states traditionally have recognized marriages performed in other states.

The government's principal argument in defense of DOMA's full faith and credit provision contends that courts have allowed states to deny recognition of marriages from other states that violate their own "public policy." The relevance of the public policy exception to same-sex marriage has received an enormous amount of attention from legal scholars. Furthermore, the government's discussion of the exception represents a fairly routine way of analyzing the legal issues presented by the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Despite its unexceptional nature, this section of the brief has inflamed many GLBT advocates because the Department of Justice cites to a series of cases that apply the public policy exception and allow states to deny recognition of certain marriages. These cases include an incestuous marriage between an uncle and his niece, a marriage involving a 16-year-old, and a marriage between first cousins.MORE

Transprose: An Open Letter

Dear Cissexual Queer/Gender Theorists, Feminists, and Trans Allies:
We need to talk. That’s not quite accurate, actually. I need to talk, and you need to shut up and listen for a minute. Because some of y’all have been talking about me, and you’ve been talking so loudly that you haven’t been hearing what I’m saying. Some of you haven’t even noticed that I’m in the room.
You probably don’t know me. But a few of you seem to think you know everything you need to know. Enough to fill up chapters in academic texts or pages on your blogs. Enough to make fetishistic jokes or webcomics. Enough to name my genitals for me.MORE