so far gone.

A senior Israeli politician provoked controversy today when he warned that Palestinians firing rockets from Gaza would be punished with a “bigger holocaust” from Israeli armed forces.

The use of the Hebrew word for holocaust, “shoah”, tends to be used exclusively in Israel to describe the Nazi persecution of Jews.

Palestinian activists routinely claim to be suffering a “shoah” at the hands of Israel, but the Jewish state normally denies any moral equivalence between the suffering of Palestinians today and European jewry under the Nazis.

Matan Vilnai, deputy defence minister, broke that taboo when he used the term “shoah” during interview on Army Radio.

“The more qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves,” he said.

- Israeli minister vows Palestinian ‘holocaust,’ The Telegraph

I’ve seen comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and now this?

The only thing those tragedies share is humanity’s willingness to test how far they can push violent solutions, and the answer in both instances was “until it breaks the moral psyche of the world’s citizenry and encourages a dangerous nihilism.”

We are not free so long as people who claim to represent our interests control militaristic strikes and wield words that can create our destruction. We do not win freedom with violence and annihilation.

Home Ec: Do It for the Kids (Not Just the Fat Ones)

The New York Times published an op-ed by Helen Zoe Veit about bringing home economics back into the public school curriculum to combat obesity among young people. It’s one of those ideas good in theory. If kids learn to cook early, they will make responsible choices about what they put in their bodies.

Realistically, though? I think kids would be more excited about the example Veit gives about putting a hole in canned biscuits to make doughnuts. I was. (That’s essentially what Chinese doughnuts from the buffets are — deep-fried canned biscuits dipped in white sugar. You’re welcome, fellow fatties.) Why cloak such a good idea in fat shaming? Veit’s right about these courses being undervalued because of the gender associations of household cooking with women (specifically, domesticated women, whether housewives or hired help) and the whitewashing of time and marketing on food preparation innovations. People may not enjoy investing time in cooking; but it can be the difference between a $1 cheeseburger every day for a week, or a $7 bean soup lasting a few weeks. (Can of broth, bag of veggies, bag of beans, spices, and some rice if you’re fiesty. Prepare, eat, and take the leftovers to the freezer to store and reheat. You’re welcome, fellow frugal cooks.)

Can our schools do this? First of all, we need to evaluate if schools have the resources to accommodate home economics courses. Home ec requires appliances: dishwashers, ovens, microwaves, refrigerators. Home ec requires cookware and bakeware: pots, pans, dutch ovens, skillets, casserole dishes, cookie sheets, muffin pans. Utensils, plenty of tupperware or other plastic, and… what’s that other ingredient? Yes. FOOD. Some public schools barely can afford to heat and to cool the buildings properly. Outfitting them with full kitchens — multiple kitchens to accommodate overcrowded classes — will take major investment.

My high school — one of the few all-girl public high schools in the nation — had a home economics class. And yes, I took it. Sometimes we were encouraged to bring in our own ingredients for casseroles, and as a poor kid, I couldn’t always make that happen. It could be difficult watching your classmates pull out bags of fresh seafood across the room and make exquisite meals. Nevertheless, it was a great learning experience. I still wince at the time someone in our small cooperative forgot to add sugar to our first yellow cake. We had to eat everything we prepared — good tasting or bad tasting — so long as it was fully cooked.

But do I know my way around a kitchen? Yes. I can, at the very least, follow a recipe. I know how to properly measure wet and dry ingredients. Making things from scratch does not seem nearly as intimidating as it did before I took that high school course. We all learned to keep our hair tied back, we washed our hands religiously, and we were well-cautioned against cross-contamination of foods. We were schooled on what utensils were before we even entered the kitchen, and our lessons on how to spot botulism have followed me into adulthood.

I am not currently Suzy Homemaker, though. Cooking is a slow science. In our fast-paced society that has trained us for instantaneous results, cooking can be a slow crawl for kids who want something to eat when they want it. A crash course on proper food storage won’t be enough. Plus, there were moments where all of us in the classroom raised our eyebrows, such as the manners video. No one eats pizza with a knife and fork unless it is a massive, messy, well-layered, deep dish monstrosity of deliciousness. With extra sauce and pepperoni.

But I digress.

Who would be best for teaching these classes? Hospitality industry familiars, nutritionists, dietitians, and chefs, perhaps? The only way I could see these courses impacting people’s eating choices is if there’s someone installed in the kitchens who understands the importance of balancing diets and realizes deprivation and austerity do not result in healthy chow-down habits. Scaring kids with “if you don’t cook, you don’t eat” would send a lot of people into unhealthy binging and ridiculous eating schedules, and those are not conducive to healthy living at all.

Another positive side effect of home ec? You could transform it into a vocational enterprise for the school. Have kids make baked goods and sell them to the student body and local communities for a reduced price. Host district-wide competitions, or take them to existing ones. Team up with hospitality colleges to show kids who want to make a career out of it that it’s an option. Encourage the construction of a school garden for homegrown choices and pair it with biology curricula. The possibilities are endless to segue food preparation with healthy rewards for everyone. Investment is the key, as it is with every good idea for rebuilding communities and initiative in a floundering economic climate.

A potential negative is the politics of food. Cultural sensitivity around what to prepare, how, and the reasons why requires conscious teachers. There are healthy alternatives and techniques for every type of cuisine.  While the French may have named virtually every cooking technique in the book, healthy and delicious soul food, techniques for making tamales, the secrets to a delicious and spicy teriyaki sauce, the filling properties of injera bread — all of these foods can open up the world to an America growing more and more close-minded in its worldview. Teaching the value of food substitution and culinary creativity goes a long way for feeding a new generation of experimental eaters.

In short, I am not completely down on Veit’s idea. The culinary industry is an important vocation. People do not like cooking at home all the time. Even home chefs who enjoy cooking like a reprieve from the kitchen. There is an open market for people who can prepare healthy, fresh and affordable foods and serve them safely. Bolstering home economics could be a valuable opportunity to take advantage of the glamor television shows like Hell’s Kitchen, Master Chef, and channels like The Food Network and The Travel Channel have given to chefs and food preparers of all genders and races. Let’s face it: Gordon Ramsay was a former football player who is one of the most respected chefs in the world.  That’s a pretty awesome profile to an up-and-coming adult.  Plus, it’d be nice to come home from school and watch Top Chef knowing exactly what a beurre blanc and a gastrique is.  (Granted, in my cooking class, we learned little about beurre blanc and gastriques; but we made some mean batches of holiday cookies to conclude the semester.)

But is the solution to curbing obesity as simple as putting a fat kid in front of a stove? Of course not.  You could even say it enables us.

evil laughter

FYI…

If you’re following the talk about raising the debt ceiling and fixing the deficit, there’s an interesting report from December 2010 that illustrates some of the financial reforms the Obama administration is pushing.  I suspect that the plan proposed to Republicans initially came from this report, and it is a lengthy PDF.  Many of the reforms and information about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are in this report.  A lot of the “cuts” to those three programs in particular interest me because it reflects Obama’s assurance that he wanted to evaluate every program and to make efficiency cuts where needed.  Medicare tends to do a lot of wasteful spending.  Social Security could be administered better, and there’s a recommendation in the report to extend Social Security for people who exhaust their retirement pay-in after a certain age.  Medicaid may be more overloaded with management (which is worrisome because Medicaid already strains state and federal budgets).  But overall, the recommendations of the report appear very pragmatic on first read.

Whatever Congress decides to do, they must do it by the end of this week to have everything signed and authorized by the August 2 deadline.  The legislative impasse taking place now is a tremendously irresponsible display of power-mongering.  I hope many of the lawmakers holding up our nation’s financial solvency and security get their comeuppance during their re-election, especially since a lot of the Republicans holding up the deal are the ones who replaced Democrats for being “ineffective” at the last midterm election period.

Anyway, enjoy the report.  I love you all, and yes, I still plan to write here every now and then.

think twice.

this post is going to be a little didactic.

think twice before you laugh at antoine dodson. i know everything is supposed to take a backseat to short-lived fame and exposure. but how would you feel if your sister was attacked by a rapist and people did nothing about it? officials laughed at you, police took their time coming to investigate, media crews didn’t arrive until you called them, and then your time on the news gets spoofed to entertain others instead of warn them. antoine’s taking his time in the spotlight in stride, and i think he’s doing it for kelly’s sake. i hope all the people laughing and singing “hide your kids, hide your wife” are writing all of the people in kelly’s community and state to do something about catching the rapist.

i planned to write about this at feministe, fast on the heels of the gang rape of a 12-year-old at a nearby skatepark. what does it mean when you read about attack after attack after attack, and one of the thoughts in your head is “i hope no one auto-tunes something like this” or “how can this story garner more attention than it’s gotten,” when these stories should be enough to knock ten people on their asses with grief.

there aren’t psychic holes deep enough to hide away from all the violence and deception this culture heaps on us every day. so if we must sit desensitized and wading through day after day, trying to survive amidst the chaos, let’s use our strong stomachs and weary eyes to bear witness. reinforce our hearts by opening them and letting the scar tissue thicken around them. occasionally be sick with grief instead of overeating, overexertion. let a raw nerve throb for something more than too much sex, too much self-indulgence.

“opinions, we all have them. i try to keep mine to myself, especially in social media forums.”

sometimes keeping things to yourself can kill other people. can get other people attacked. can allow evil ideas to conquer the marketplace and argue why they should go unchallenged. because of the importance of keeping dissent mum. because no one wants to be told that maybe what they’re feeling and thinking is wrong. maybe they ought to think twice before inflicting their will on the world.

maybe everyone should speak loudly. all at once. without looking for a cheap laugh. hide your kids. hide your wife. hide your husband because they’re raping everybody up in here. say it three times with a straight face and wonder how hard you’d laugh if it were your reality. think of how hard you laugh if it is your reality.

how loudly would you scream if you realized no one is truly safe?

A Request

To Concerned Allies Who Mean Well:

Please don’t travel to Detroit unless you plan to remain for longer than a few hours, a day, or a week.  Please don’t abandon Detroit to a fate like the one Jena, Louisiana is enduring after your last march for “justice.”  I wrote a long time ago about the need for clear goals and understandings before mobilizing any mass descent upon any town.  If brownfemipower is right, and Rev. Al and Jesse are going to “mobilize” you to “march” to Detroit for Aiyana Jones, please understand she is not the only reason you are marching.  Please understand that the issue is bigger than the murder of Aiyana Jones.

I am not saying that Aiyana does not deserve justice, or that the cops who took her life should not face consequences.  I am saying that you should write your media outlets and ask them why they have not dedicated as much mainstream attention to Aiyana as they have to Yeardley Love.  I am saying you should question the claim that “the suspect was found inside the home” when the police executed the search warrant.  I am saying you should question the necessity of filming a documentary of any kind during a high-pressure moment of capturing a homicide suspect.

Question the increasing militarization of police forces and the increasingly militarized raids they conduct.

Think about the consequences of your marches; think about the consequences of your actions.  Reach out to the activists who know the communities and families of Detroit; lend them your ears and tell your senators, your representatives, your media makers to listen to them.  Listen to what they ask of you before trying to provide what you cannot give and what they cannot afford to maintain, what they cannot afford to keep.

“The only gossip I’m interested in is things from the Weekly World News – ‘Woman’s bra bursts, 11 injured’. That kind of thing.”

Johnny Depp wouldn’t like my news round-ups.

(High) Court TV — Chicago Tribune

The case for cameras in courtrooms, including the Supreme Court, gets stronger by the year. All 50 states allow cameras in at least some state courts. Video technology continues to shrink and become less intrusive. Thousands of hours of court time already have been broadcast over truTV, the new name of Court TV, and conventional TV news shows and webcasts without a surge in obstructed justice, security problems or privacy violations for jurors or witnesses.

Death sentences vary by county, study finds — San Francisco Chronicle

The commission, a legislatively created body headed by former state Attorney General John Van de Kamp, met in Santa Clara on Friday for the last of three hearings to address concerns about the death penalty in California. The state has 669 condemned prisoners, the most in the nation, and has executed 13 people since executions resumed in 1992 after a 25-year halt.

The ACLU said 10 counties, with 68.5 percent of the state’s population, produced 83 percent of the 166 death sentences decreed by juries in the state from 2000 to 2007. The group examined data from the 24 most populous of California’s 58 counties.

San Francisco, where District Attorney Kamala Harris and her predecessor Terence Hallinan promised voters not to seek death sentences, was one of four counties with no death verdicts during the period. The others were Marin, Santa Cruz and Solano.

The counties with the most death sentences compared with murder cases filed included two in the Bay Area: Contra Costa, which ranked third on the list, and Alameda, which was fifth.
In death sentences per capita, the report said, Alameda County was eight times as likely to sentence someone to death as Santa Clara County. By the same measure, Tulare County, which headed the list, issued death verdicts at 13 times the rate of neighboring Fresno County.

Earliest recordings preceded Edison’s — Los Angeles Times

Using technology originally designed to play records without touching them, a team at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was able to convert a series of squiggly lines etched onto smoked paper into an ethereal voice singing “Au Clair de la Lune, Pierrot répondit,” a refrain from a French folk song.

The piece was played publicly for the first time Friday morning at a meeting of the Assn. for Recorded Sound Collections at Stanford University by historian David Giovannoni, who unearthed it this month in the archives of the French Academy of Sciences.

Outrage and Controversy at NY Museum Art Show Depicting Police Brutality — Alternet

“The Blue Wall of Violence” is a 1999 installation that addresses police brutality. It focuses on the object that the police “mistook” for a dangerous weapon when they shot an unarmed person. The artwork consists of several elements: On the wall are six actual FBI silhouette targets which police use for shooting practice. Protruding from each of these is a cast of an arm. In each hand is an object — wallet, house keys, 3 Musketeers bar, squeegee, etc. Above each target is a date. In front of this is a coffin and in front of the coffin are three police batons which are moved by motors so that they each strike the casket every 10 seconds with a loud penetrating bang. The dates correspond to a day when an actual person was shot by the police and the objects are what they were holding when shot (For example, on February 4, 1999 Amadou Dialo was shot 41 times while holding his wallet, on Sept 24, 1994, 13-year-old Nicholas Hayward Jr. was killed while holding a brightly colored oversized water pistol …)

The whole article is superb.

Clinton not quitting: ‘I like long movies’ — Chicago Tribune

Clinton said the rules applying to super delegates having a right and responsibility to pick the best candidate for president also applies to the regularly elected delegates—those who are pledged to support a particular candidate for nomination. She indicated that delegates elected to support Obama, who outnumber those elected to back Clinton, could end up supporting her based on the outcome of upcoming state contests.

“Every delegate has a responsibility to vote for the person that they believe would be the best candidate and the best president, however they define it,” she said. “That’s what the delegates are going to do and that is something that will evolve over the next several months and I think there will be additional information that will inform those decisions coming from these upcoming contests.”

Well, Jesus Christ, Hillary: why does anyone who isn’t a delegate bother voting at all, then? Why should we count Michigan, Florida, or any other state if it’s the job of the delegates to blatantly ignore the people’s will?

Should Obama Drop Out of the Race? — The Huffington Post

Plus, and here’s the most important point: It’s not over yet. Until it is, we can’t be sure of the outcome. And it would be a big mistake to end it prematurely. There’s been many a boxing match where one fighter won 14 rounds, only to get knocked out in the 15th.

All these Obama supporters calling on Clinton to drop out aren’t helping their candidate, either. They make Obama look like he’s afraid of a fight. And they themselves look like a stereotypical bunch of men telling a woman she can’t hack it in politics, so she might as well get back in the kitchen.

Shared because I do think a part of the Hillary Clinton concession demand is sexist, even if there are damned good arguments for the sentiment. She’s not a dizzy girl with no conception of politics. And when Huckabee was in the same stubborn lock with McCain in the Republican primary with not nearly the same chances at winning, you saw the calls for him to quit without the condescending belittlement being directed at Clinton.

12 City Businesses Facing Lawsuits Over Access For Disabled — Associated Press

Twelve Tucson businesses, including two hospitals, have been sued for allegedly of not being fully accessible to people with disabilities.

The suits filed by a Florida-based law firm target St. Mary’s and St. Joseph’s hospitals as well as the Doubletree Hotel, El Charro Cafe, Foothills Mall and Coffee Xchange, among other businesses.

The same law firm has filed hundreds of similar suits in nine other states and Washington, D.C.
The few owners who would comment when contacted Thursday said they weren’t doing anything wrong and that their buildings were just built before the Americans With Disabilities Act standards were adopted in 1990.

The federal court actions focus mostly on issues involving parking, access and bathroom size.

Lawyer: Gitmo Trials Pegged to ’08 Campaign — t r u t h o u t

The brief filed Thursday by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer directly challenged the integrity of President Bush’s war court.

Notably, it describes a Sept. 29, 2006, meeting at the Pentagon in which Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, a veteran White House appointee, asked lawyers to consider Sept. 11, 2001, prosecutions in light of the campaign.

“We need to think about charging some of the high-value detainees because there could be strategic political value to charging some of these detainees before the election,” England is quoted as saying.

A senior Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, declined to address the specifics, saying “the trial process will surface the facts in this case.”

“It has always been everybody’s desire to move as swiftly and deliberately as possible to conduct military commissions,” he added. “But I can tell you emphatically that leadership has always been extraordinarily careful to guard against any unlawful command influence.”

The brief quotes England as a stipulation of fact and cites other examples of alleged political interference, which Mizer argues makes it impossible for Salim Hamdan, 37, to have a fair trial.

It asks the judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, to dismiss the case against Hamdan as an alleged 9/11 co-conspirator on the grounds that Bush administration leadership exercises “unlawful command influence.”

Greg Mitchell: Bush Confesses All to Oprah! — Huffington Post

In the days after Oprah Winfrey two years ago sliced and diced writer James Frey on her TV show for misleading the public with lies in his bestselling memoir, many liberal commentators expressed a single wish: to watch Oprah have the opportunity to do the same with President George W. Bush concerning the alleged lies that got the U.S. into Iraq (2,200 lost American lives ago). Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post columnist, observed, “If there were justice in the world, George W. Bush would have to give his State of the Union address from Oprah’s couch. . . . Bush should have to face the wrathful, Old Testament Oprah who subjected author James Frey to that awful public smiting the other day.”

Columnist Norman Solomon cited the Winfrey/Frey tussle, then charged, “Yet the journalists who interview Bush aren’t willing to question him in similar terms.” Jon Stewart contrasted Oprah’s tough questioning of Frey with obsequious TV news treatment of Bush, Rumsfeld, and others. Maureen Dowd compared “disgraced author” Frey with “a commander in chief who keeps writing chapter after chapter of fictionalized propaganda.”

So I have taken the liberty of pushing all this dreaming one step beyond, imagining an Oprah sitdown with the president—based almost word for word on the transcript of her session with Frey, with just a very few phrases obviously changed here and there. Here it is, without commercial interruption. It even has a happy ending.

One Link Drive-By: Raid Response Network

“The Rapid Response Network has had its first successful response to a raid. Thursday night, at 6 PM, a woman called the hotline from her home in Elizabeth, saying that ICE agents were outside, demanding to be let in. The RRN phone volunteer reassured the woman that she had a right not to let the ICE agents in without a search warrant. Although the agents were waving various papers around through the window, they did not show any such warrant. The owner of the house was also brought to the phone and assured that she too had the right not to admit the ICE agents. The woman called her husband, warning him not to come home until the agents had gone. After some 20 minutes, the ICE agents gave up. No one was detained and the Hotline worked as intended. Thanks to the phone volunteer!”

Apparently you are a citizen once you are sentenced to death.

[warning: impromptu incoherent conspiracy theorist legal ramblings of a second-year law student with no immediate access to internets] 

The more reading I do surrounding Medellin v. Texas, the more upset I get because the decision to ignore the International Court of Justice’s ruling in this matter reinforces three principles:

Principle 1. The United States of America continues to have no respect for international law or the rights of human beings.

Principle 2. The United States of America has a half-assed interpretation of its own law and does not honor its word when working with international bodies through governmental loopholes.

Principle 3. President George W. Bush is a power hungry git who manages to be wrong even when he should be right.

First, a news commentary from U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (TX), written around 2007:

In mid-October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a criminal case from Texas that poses yet another threat to our sovereignty. The case involved Jose Ernesto Medellin, a foreign citizen convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 in the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.

Long after his sentence was final, Medellin’s lawyers came up with a new appeal point. They argued that because Medellin was not a U.S. citizen, and under the Vienna Convention the Mexican consulate should have been notified when he was arrested, his appeal should be reopened. This argument was accepted in 2004 by a foreign tribunal, the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Medellin was indeed born in Mexico, but lived in the U.S. most of his life. He speaks, reads and writes English, and attended U.S. schools. Disappointingly, the Bush Administration has issued a directive to Texas officials attempting to enforce the foreign court’s judgment, and also backed Medellin’s side at the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have argued that the President lacks constitutional authority to direct Texas to reopen Medellin’s conviction. In my opinion, the President cannot by himself transform an international treaty, and especially a foreign court’s judgment, into domestic law.

So…when people come over to America to find work and raise families, attempt to learn English as much as possible (when they’re not working to support said families), and try to live as far under the radar as possible even though citizenship would be totally desirable, they’re damned dirty illegal aliens who need to get out, get out, get out.

But when people come over to America, live here their whole lives, read, write, and speak fluent English — but commit heinous crimes and get sentenced to death, and they say blatantly, “I AM NOT A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY; THERE ARE LAWS ABOUT THIS FACT” and want their rights as entitled by international law — they’re American enough that a state can ignore international law and Mexico’s request to intervene?

I did not realize the United States has never recognized the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Apparently, we signed it; but the geniuses in the U.S. Senate around that time never made it binding on our government. It appears that the same principles govern the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — we may have signed it but the U.S. Senate didn’t give its advice and consent to the treaty to make it fully binding. Mexico challenged the United States’ actions in the International Court of Justice in The Hague under the latter treaty in 2004, and the World Court ruled that the U.S. must recognize the provision in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and notify Mexico that its nationals are in prison so they can provide aid and consult with the incarcerated men, according to Article 26, Paragraph 1(c):

[Article 26, Paragraph 1(c)]
With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State [...] consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.

In relevant part, today’s Supreme Court decision collectively screws Mexican nationals sentenced to death for various crimes around the country, including Mr. Medellin:

In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas and rebuked Bush by a 6-3 vote.

The president was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.

An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country’s consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

Now, I hate when President Bush tries to extend his power illegally. I do. And I think our Cowboy Prince fucked all these men over because he was trying to extend his presidential power illegally. Or (and this is more insidious) he wanted more assurance that if an international court ever tries to prosecute him and his buddies for war crimes, the United States would have complete freedom to ignore the rulings as non-binding even if the executive branch orders it. Congress takes forever to do mostly everything; it’s unlikely that both houses would jump at the chance to enforce an international court order, especially with Nancy “Impeachment Off the Table” Pelosi running (more like ruining) the House of Representatives. (But that is my inner conspiracy theorist going craaaaaazy.)

[White House Press Secretary Dana Perino] noted that the administration’s position in the case was focused on the authority it believed the president has to compel a state to comply with international agreements. “The argument of the United States in this case in no way condoned or defended the heinous crime,” Perino said.

Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by state courts because the United States had agreed to abide by the world court’s rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president’s declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing.

I slightly forgive Justice Stevens for his concurrence because he was caught in a Catch-22 — either illegally broaden the President’s power because the Senate is full of pricks and doesn’t give all the treaties the U.S. signs force (rough translation: make it so the President can ignore Congress in yet another way) or refuse to give the Cowboy Prince any power and screw a bunch of Mexican nationals because this country will not comply with their international rights (rough translation: ignore international law completely and pretend the U.S. isn’t subject to anything but itself; America fuck yeah rah rah barf).

Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the outcome of the case, said nothing prevents Texas from giving Medellin another hearing even though it is not compelled to do so.

“Texas’ duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that – by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention – ensnared the United States in the current controversy,” Stevens said.

In the scheme of this entire matter, the argument from Texas would make no sense IF the United States enforced the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Let’s look at some quick facts from the Forbes article.

Medellin was arrested a few days after the killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in June 1993. He was told he had a right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, but the police did not tell him that he could request assistance from the Mexican consulate.

Medellin, who speaks, reads and writes English, gave a written confession. He was convicted of murder in the course of a sexual assault, a capital offense in Texas. A judge sentenced him to death in October 1994.

Texas acknowledged that Medellin was not told he could ask for help from Mexican diplomats, but argued that he forfeited the right because he never raised the issue at trial or sentencing. In any case, the state said, the diplomats’ intercession would not have made any difference in the outcome of the case. [Emphasis added.]

Now, if I’m reading the particular provision of this treaty correctly, Medellin could not forfeit such a right if he was not made aware that he had it. Reason being, the provision of the treaty mentions that the national has to expressly oppose the intervention of the consulate in order for the consul not to act on his behalf. Express, the opposite of implied, meaning that people have to know about what they’re forfeiting and say, “I forfeit it; bah and humbug,” before it is forfeited. Similar to how an arrested criminal has to waive Miranda rights by saying “I waive my Miranda rights” or by signing a form stating they understand their Miranda rights and expressly waive them to talk with the police.

These circumstances obviously didn’t happen here. And obviously, the opportunity for a foreign government to intervene and possibly to get these death row inmates better representation, etc., would’ve made no difference. Yeah, right. Sure.

At least someone had the balls to question whether or not compliance with a World Court ruling is debatable, according to the SCOTUSblog recap of the October 2007 oral argument:

Among the Justices, only David H. Souter spent some time exploring whether the Court could avoid a decision that would reject the President’s authority to implement the World Court judgment by simply ruling, on its own, that the international tribunal’s decision on the Mexican nationals was binding. Questioning Cruz, for example, Souter wondered whether there was any “positive rule, in international or domestic law, which precludes this Court from being the implementing authority” of a World Court decision? The state’s lawyer replied that the Court was “the final authority to determine federal law,” but said that, if it were to do so in the Medellin case, it would have to overrule its ruling of a year ago in the case of Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon finding that the Vienna Convention does not give foreign nationals a right to claim violation of their Convention rights if such claims are barred by state criminal procedures.

Souter was one of the three justices to dissent with the holding (along with Breyer and Ginsburg…of course).

Medellin’s lawyer and the Justice Department take the view that the Sanchez-Llamas decision only dealt with an interpretation of the Convention’s meaning, not with an actual Court judgment in a specific case. Medellin contends, though, that the judgment is binding on the state on its own terms, under the Supremacy Clause, but the government takes the view that it is to be implemented because the President has said so. [Emphasis added.]

So if I’m correctly understanding the argument of Medellin’s lawyer, Donald F. Donovan, when an international court rules on a treaty provision being violated, the federal government must treat that ruling as binding authority and enforce it because the federal government agreed to honor the treaty upon signing it and the executive branch has the job of executing the treaty. Not because Le Bastard Bush said so — and I don’t doubt that was the whole of the smirking chimp’s argument.

I’m utterly floored that one of Roberts’ challenges to all this is asking where the Supreme Court comes into the equation:

If the World Court’s judgment on the Mexican nationals’ legal rights here were binding federal law inside the U.S., Roberts wondered, would the Justices have any authority to second-guess the content of that law? “We would have no authority to review the judgment itself?” he asked with notable skepticism.

Uhhh…NO. The Supreme Court presides over the law of the United States, not the international law of the World Court. I know how “World Court” sounds a little like “World Series,” with the latter mostly involving baseball teams from the United States and the former involving international law binding on most of THE WORLD. But no, Roberts, you and the Black Robe Crew 4 Lyfe do not have automatic judicial review of cases heard in the World Court because it involves more than the United States, sry 2 say. No crazy backasswards sovereignty over the world for you.

The Supreme Court, however, can dictate how the federal government enforces treaties. That clever ploy of the U.S. signing treaties without the Senate binding the country to the agreement is real cute under these circumstances. Now, if we go by today’s ruling, the Supreme Court intervenes by telling the executive branch that it cannot enforce a treaty because it infringes upon the will of the states,

thereby ignoring the World Court’s enforcement of a treaty to which the United States SHOULD be held accountable,

AND ignoring the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution when Bush, God bless/damn him, tries to enforce the treaty

…to appease the state of Texas (as well as a few others).

Did I get that right?

Way to go, Roberts & Co. Powerful Americentric Jackasses ‘R’ U.

House of Cards

Patricia J. Williams has been making too much sense again.

It was delightful, those early days when Republicans were in fractious disarray and the Democratic field bloomed with interesting candidates like a pasture full of daffodils–any of them! All of them! Bluebirds sang. We were rolling in good will. Now, however, John McCain has unified the right with a lizardy, smothering oil of “my friend,” “my friends” and “hey listen, pal.” And Democrats are chewing each other’s legs off. Instead of discussion about substantive positions, a distressingly large proportion of the debate is epitomized by an e-mail I received from a good friend: “In my state, a black man trumps a white woman and that’s that. So what do you suggest?” Here’s what I suggest. 

Go see what she suggests.  Hat-tip to LJ Blackfolk.

News Bulletin: Agena and Aliyah Battle, Sedrick Harrington

Final Update: The children’s bodies, as well as the father’s body, were found recently.

URGENT:

Eddie Harrington recently wrote a letter to his father saying that he would kill the children.

Please, if you have any ideas where these four people can be, contact the authorities IMMEDIATELY.

(Hat-tip to Donna for the update.)

Also see the FBI Crime Alert for Eddie Harrington. 

(Thanks, Deidra.) 

23-month-old twins Agena and Aliyah Battle, and 3-year-old Sedrick Harrington have been reported missing from Columbus, Georgia since March 5, 2008 (pictured above from l. to r.). Their suspected kidnapper is their father, 28-year-old Eddie Harrington:

According to the mother, Eddie Harrington, her fiancée and the father of her children, may have taken the children because he thought that it would make her happy. At the time he left, Eddie was probably depressed and was not taking his medication. There is a picture of Eddie on the NCMEC with braids but it’s not the most accurate. Eddie is bald and wears glasses. Eddie is also described as a 28 year old black male, standing at 5 feet 9 inches and weighting 195 pounds.

Sedrick Harrington, one of the missing children, is three years old and has a birthmark on his right arm. Her mother told me that he has a speech problem but is a very bright and imaginative little boy. She said that when he was bored, he would grab a book, look at the pictures and make his own story out of it. Agena and Aliyah Battle, the 1 year old twins who always fight with each other but cannot go to bed without each other, do not have any known birthmarks but they do respond to their names.

When Eddie left, he was driving a dark green 2002 Chevrolet Impala with a cracked windshield and an Indiana license plate with the number 93-L4740.

Authorities are still trying to track down their whereabouts. The group of four hasn’t been discovered for five days. The mother has issued another plea today for people to keep looking out for Harrington and the three children.

“Agena and Aliyah has on a pink shirt with white sleeves and pink plaid pants. One of the girls has on all white K-Swiss sneakers and the other has on pink, white, purple, Nike sneakers.

“Eddie has on a black T-shirt with black pants and brown and white sneakers; he also is wearing his glasses.

“I’m not sure what Sedrick has on, but I do know he has on his Spider-Man play sneakers. Sedrick also has a greenish color to his right arm from birth.

“Please air this stating that they are still missing. I have not eaten or slept well since they’ve been gone. I need them home. I am crying for your help. I have tried to do my daily routine but I cannot function well with out them.”

The police are requesting help and tips.

Authorities issued an AMBER Alert. They believe [Eddie Harrington] could be headed right for Kentuckiana.

“We’ve done a follow up investigation and determined he has contacts in Tennessee, Florida and of course, he is from Indianapolis, Indiana,” says Lt. Mark Starling with the Columbus, Georgia Police Department.

Harrington has Indiana license plates, number 93-L4740 on his 2002 dark green Chevy Impala. It also has a cracked windshield.

“If the vehicle passes, you grab the cell phone. Call 911. Let us know. Alert us to it. That way we can respond with units on the interstate or on county roads. Wherever the vehicle was seen and try and get it stopped,” says ISP Trooper Phil D’Angelo of the Sellersburg post.

If you see a dark green 2002 Chevrolet Impala with a cracked windshield and an Indiana license plate with the number 93-L4740, please call the Columbus, GA Police Department at 706-653-3400. Any tips on this case are appreciated.

P.S. See the video dedicated to the missing children.