Congress is now looking at a bill to change the law. Sen. McCain, who skipped a vote on it, said that of course he supports equal pay but “this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.”

Some support. Apparently someone such as Ledbetter suing because she’s been discriminated against is worse than the actual discrimination in McCain’s view. How does he think these cases should be handled then? Have Ledbetter stare at her boss with sad puppydog eyes?

If McCain is the kind of elitist who thinks it should be legal to discriminate based on gender, fine, but spare me the crap about how he really, really supports equal rights.

ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I’d like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. It was uncalled for–we can disagree civilly, we don’t need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents. One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about “lasting physical damage”…
Q: “This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal. After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan. Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. And among the tortures listed was the “water treatment,” which we nowadays call waterboarding…”
Ashcroft: “This is a speech, not a question. I don’t mind, but it’s not a question.”
Q: I”t will be, sir, just give me a moment. The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, “the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.” One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information. Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country–exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do–do you believe that his sentence was unjust?”
Ashcroft: “Now, listen here. You’re comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don’t do anything like what you described.”
Q: “I’m sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water down their throat…”
Ashcroft: “Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said? “Putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water on them.” That’s not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!”
…
Q: “The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.”
Ashcroft: :You hear that? You hear it? “Forced!” If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…does this college have an anatomy class? If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…”
Q: “Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano’s sentence was unjust? Answer the question.”
Ashcroft: “It’s not a fair question; there’s no comparison. Next question!”

But this administration does not recognize the existence of any such lines. They do not “have to” withdraw just because none of their plans have worked, the army is breaking, and the war has next to no popular support. They would “have to” withdraw only if someone put a gun to their collective heads and forced them to. They do not “have to” obey the law or the Constitution: they will only if they are literally compelled to. Likewise, they do not “have to” respect even the most basic principles of decency and humanity, even when obligated to do so by US law and treaties we have signed, which are, according to the Constitution, the law of the land. Neither moral suasion nor legal obligation seem to matter to them. The only sense in which they “have to” do anything is the sense involving physical necessity.
….

The Bush administration threatens us with the catastrophe of losing our sense that there are things the government cannot do every time they do one of those things. I never, ever want to go along with their redefinition of what is possible, which is why I refuse to stop being outraged.”

Covering up the fact that priests commit child abuse, shifting them to other parishes where their record isn’t known and convincing law enforcement to suppress any charges (the latter was detailed in a stunning report in the Toledo Blade a few years back) aren’t bad handling. It’s immoral and I would imagine possibly criminal in some cases.

Benedict himself, according to a BBC 2006 documentary, pushed to keep the cases secret when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, though the Catholic Church has disputed the BBC’s interpretation of the church documents cited in the story (personally, I find it hard to give the church any credibility on this issue).

In the prayer service from which that quote came, Benedict also asks “What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes?” Which in this context sounds like the “Well, maybe America does torture people, but we torture a lot fewer than Saddam” line of argument—hey, maybe the church did some bad things, but children are already swimming in a cesspool, so what difference does a little more abuse make? (In fairness, that is an interpretation, and he might have meant something quite different).

“I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate— I will not excuse —I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.
With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.”

I was reminded of this by a story in The Nation about Dawn Leamon, a KBR employee in Iraq who alleges that in January she was sodomized and gang raped by coworkers and soldiers. She reported the incident to her supervisor (who told her to keep quiet about it–she didn’t go public until she was at another, larger base where she felt safer), then was told by an Army investigator that her supervisor had been in the room a couple of times during the night she was raped. And like the rest of the company, is insisting that nothing happened, there shouldn’t be any stories written about this, perhaps she’s making it up

Assuming her story is true, did Leamon’s boss know what was going down? If so, how did he walk away without stopping it? How do the corporate spokespeople writing to the Nation and telling them they shouldn’t be printing the story sleep knowing they’re covering up for rapists? Why is that a better solution than rooting out and punishing the guys who did this?

Even if her story isn’t true, there are countless identical, proven-true stories that are: People who saw a rape in progress and turned a blind eye. People who covered up for the boss, or the company or the community. And I suspect didn’t have any trouble sleeping soundly afterwards.

Sometimes our capacity for rottenness horrifies me.

Even if it turns out the passport prying were part of some big scheme, my point doesn’t change, because lots of other cases back it up: A percentage of IRS agents, cops and others with investigative powers have proven willing to use them to satisfy personal curiosity, even though their use of files is illegal.

Anyone really think the NSA, the FBI or any other federal agency is different? That people don’t yield to the urge to dig up dirt on their neighbor, their ex-wife’s boyfriend, their ex-wife? And the less supervision and oversight they have, the more it will happen.

•Chain of command: Contractors aren’t part of it. If you’re military and you’re told to do something hazardous, you do it or else. The worst that can happen to a contractor who refuses to go into a danger zone—and this has happened—is that they lose their job.

•Fraud: We’ve lost hundreds of millions to fraud and mismanagement (military book-keeping is notoriously bad at keeping track of money), but the administration has very little interest in investigating it. One inspector general following the money trails was fired, and Bush recently made a signing statement saying he wasn’t bound by Congress’ creation of an Executive/Congressional panel to investigate profiteering and fraud.

•Special interests: Maybe it’s no surprise that the administration wouldn’t want to have a committee investigating well-connected corporate interests. Which leads to a further question: When you have corporations playing a role in a major military operation, is there a risk of lobbyists influencing policy?

•Crime: Repeatedly I keep reading cases of contractor employees who’ve committed a crime, or allegedly committed a crime, and nothing can be done: We won’t turn them over to Iraqis, they’re outside the military court system and prosecutors back home can’t touch them.

I think whatever our views on the Iraq war, we can all agree this is a bad thing.

And it can be a lot worse, as in the case of KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones, who says she was gang-raped by coworkers two years ago in the Green Zone.

After Army doctors performed a medical exam which allegedly confirms the rape, the military turned the kit over to KBR. Parts of the kit have now disappeared. Finding Jones had reported the rape, KBR put her in a shipping container without food and water for 24 hours.

The Justice Department hasn’t charged anyone, and ABC News has said they can’t find any government agency even investigating the case.

On the other hand, Mohammad Munaf and Ahmed Omar, two US citizens in Iraq who were accused of working with kidnappers, were taken by the military and held without charge. When their lawyers filed to set them free, they were turned over to the Iraqi courts (our government is trying to convince the Supreme Court that Munaf and Omar should have no standing in US courts because the military in Iraq are part of a US force outside American authority).

So we’re back to the special-interest issue: We can handle crimes committed by US citizens iin Iraq just fine, so long as the alleged criminals aren’t tied to powerful, influential contractors with deep connections to the US government. Go figure.

Sarcasm aside, if we’re going to use contractors, particularly contractors employing military force, there has to be a much clearer law covering what they’re obligated to do and how they’ll be punished if they commit crimes. And a heck of a lot better job at keeping control of the money.