Immigrant Lies, French Guy Flies

The New York Times has the best, i.e., the least hysterical, coverage of the legal reversals in the case against that French Big Shot with the double-barreled name.

The development represented a stunning reversal in a case that reshaped the French political landscape and prompted debate about morals, the treatment of women and the American justice system. Prosecutors said that they still believed there was evidence to support the notion that Mr. Strauss-Kahn had forced the woman to perform oral sex, but that inconsistencies in her past and in her account of the moments following the episode could make it extremely difficult to persuade jurors to believe her.

-- snip --

Prosecutors disclosed that the woman had admitted lying in her application for asylum from Guinea. According to their letter, she “fabricated the statement with the assistance of a male who provided her with a cassette recording” that she memorized. She also said that her claim that she had been the victim of a gang rape in Guinea was a lie.

There is more information in a letter to the lawyers for the accused sent by New York County District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. (the son of Jimmy Carter's first Secretary of State, BTW).

So, the immigrant from Guinea who reported she was raped by Dominique Strauss-Kahn had made fraudulent statements during her 2004 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal from the USA sufficient to convince an Asylum Officer that she suffered persecution or fear of persecution due to her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In other words, she lied to get a Green Card. Or to put it more cynically, she responded to the incentives provided by our asylum laws.

Personally, I'm shocked to learn that an African woman could so blatantly abuse our asylum process and get away with it. But I'll get over my surprise.

Lying for a Green Card doesn't automatically impeach your credibility in an unrelated criminal case. But, unhappily for District Attorney Vance, his victim's past lies-to-justify-asylum included rape, and New York law allows juries to hear about past false accusations of rape.

Maybe even worse, the victim evidently thought about profiting from the situation, and did so out loud in a phone call that was subject to monitoring by the same immigration service that she had defrauded back in 2004:

Twenty-eight hours after a housekeeper at the Sofitel New York said she was sexually assaulted by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, she spoke by phone to a boyfriend in an immigration jail in Arizona.

Investigators with the Manhattan district attorney’s office learned the call had been recorded and had it translated from a “unique dialect of Fulani,” a language from the woman’s native country, Guinea, according to a well-placed law enforcement official.

When the conversation was translated — a job completed only this Wednesday — investigators were alarmed: “She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ ” the official said.

The two revelations surely look like the end of the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, but not - I think - an exoneration of him. His lawyers now have what they need to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury despite "evidence to support the notion that Mr. Strauss-Kahn had forced the woman to perform oral sex." Doesn't make him innocent, just makes him free to go.

The purported victim might really be a victim. And if so she wouldn't be any less a victim because she previously lied about being raped in order to get asylum, or even because she plotted to get some of Dominique Strauss-Kahn's (wife's) millions afterwards. But her actions before and after the event in the Sofitel suite will prevent justice from being done out of our constitutional concern for the rights of the accused.

Read More

Reality Has Its Limits

H/T to Lowering The Bar, those lawyers with a sense of the absurd, for this news:

An upcoming reality show will reportedly follow employees of the Department of Homeland Security. Inside the DHS will tell "the real story of the day-to-day battle to keep us safe, prepared and resilient," according to some asshole at AMC. I assume an early episode will tell the real story of how a guy flew from JFK to LAX using an expired boarding pass with somebody else's name on it.

A DHS reality show? The last thing Homeland Security needs is more hype and hoopla.

Read More

So Many Targets To Strike, And Bases To Launch From

H/T to Danger Room for noting that we have a Plan B, and a C, D, and E as well, for continuing drone strikes in Pakistan even if the Pak military shuts us out of their air base at Shamsi.

For one thing, if [Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhary Ahmed] Mukhtar’s for real [about his threat to Shamsi], Defense Tech’s John Rood notes that the United States is rumored to fly drones out of two other Pakistani air bases. More fundamentally, the CIA already flies drones into the Pakistani tribal areas from Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. And Air Force drones hovering above Afghanistan, launched from J’bad and Kandahar in the south, chase fleeing insurgents into Pakistan with regularity — they just have to give the Pakistanis a heads-up.

The harsh truth is that the Pakistanis can’t stop the drone war on their soil. But they can shift its launching points over the Afghan border. And the United States is already working on a backup plan for a long-term drone war, all without the Pakistanis’ help.

Read More

Leaks, Politics, And State Department Documents, Long Before Julian Assange Was Born

The State Department's Office of the Historian is Commemorating 150 Years of Foreign Relations at the moment, and has posted several academic papers on the topic with surprising takes on how the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series - the world's gold standard for diplomatic history - has been used to influence domestic and international politics:

Did you know that…

the 1955 release of the official records of the Yalta conference was headline news around the world? [And] the U.S. Government used its own diplomatic correspondence as a weapon against the Confederacy during the Civil War?

I did not know that.

The paper on the politics of the Yalta FRUS is here, and I highly recommend it. A few excerpts:

Throughout the 20th century, the Foreign Relations series evolved in response to broader transformations in American foreign relations, government institutions, and political culture. The most enduring of these transformations occurred in the 1950s, when the series adapted to the development of the national security state and the globalization of U.S. power. The intense bureaucratic, partisan, and international controversies generated by the 1955 FRUS volume for the 1945 Yalta conference helped define the series for the Cold War.

The Yalta volume precipitated the transformation of FRUS, though the controversies that it sparked also imperiled the existence of the series ... In the short run, however, the Yalta FRUS also emboldened officials in the U.S. Government skeptical of the value of transparency in a dangerous world.

The Yalta volume began as a classified policy study for official use within the U.S. Government in November 1947 ... In 1950, the question of wider publication arose as partisan debate over the conference intensified. Bernard Noble, head of the Historical Policy Research Division ... warned [SecState Dean Acheson] that portions of conference minutes might embarrass the U.S. and Britain, that the lack of agreed minutes might allow the Soviet Union to release an “alternate” version of the conference to galvanize world opinion against the West, and that the Department’s poor wartime record-keeping left it incapable of satisfying inevitable public demands for releasing the records of the other conferences. Choosing security over transparency, the Department kept the Yalta records secret.

After Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1952 election, the new, conservative Congressional majority urged a different choice. On April 22, Senate Majority Leader William Knowland ... requested a special series on secret Allied wartime conferences. “If Democratic holdovers in the Division of Historical Policy Research are prevented from excluding key documents,” Knowland predicted, “these publications would be of tremendous value.”

-- snip --

The continued sensitivity of many of the issues discussed at the wartime conferences and the partisan aura of the accelerated production of FRUS alarmed other government agencies and former officials. It took years for [the Historical Division] to gain access to Truman’s papers for the Potsdam compilation, and the office was denied permission to examine the papers of the deceased Yalta Secretary of State, Edward Stettinius. Even some bureaucracies that had cooperated with the original policy study resisted additional requests. The most consequential bureaucratic opposition to releasing the Yalta volume came from the Pentagon.

-- snip --

In an August 1954 review of the first galley proofs of the volume, Winnacker expressed “a sense of shock when reading in the present EDC atmosphere the actual 1945 plans for the postwar treatment of Germany, its dismemberment, reparations, and standard of living” and thought “the cavalier disposal of smaller countries or the attitude toward France” were “not likely to facilitate our foreign relations.” Winnacker warned that gaps and the selective inclusion of pre-conference documents would discredit the publication. He suggested either abandoning the project, allowing the Senate to publish a revised version in exchange for increased mutual assistance funds to “undo the damage” abroad, or “prohibiting” the volume’s “export or republication in foreign languages.” Although conceding that final authority rested with State, Winnacker ardently believed that publication would harm the national interest.

The Bureau of European Affairs within the State Department itself also considered the Yalta volume too sensitive to release. To officials responsible for U.S. policy toward Germany, releasing the Yalta compilation seemed recklessly irresponsible.

-- snip --

[Foreign Minister] Anthony Eden [who had to clear the release of joint Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff papers] explained his “very real concern over the publication of all these documents so soon after the event.” He argued that “publication now of such detailed records may cause misunderstanding or create controversy without significantly increasing public knowledge of the events” and warned that British “anxieties about this project and our fear that the publication of such detailed records in the political lifetime of so many of the participants may make it difficult for us to be as frank as we should wish in future conferences.”

-- snip --

[The new SecState John Foster] Dulles grew increasingly frustrated, and when, in late January, McCardle worried that the intense interest in the Yalta volume made leaks inevitable, the Secretary confessed he “wouldn’t mind that.” In the same conversation, he pointed out that Senator Knowland and his conservative colleagues had pushed the State Department to expedite FRUS because “they thought there was a lot of stuff which would be useful. Actually there is nothing.” After several weeks of debate, Dulles accepted Noble’s suggestion of limiting access to the galleys (and responsibility for leaks) to Congress.

But, with the Democrats back in power, this strategy backfired. Congress refused to accept responsibility for classified documents and demanded to know why State didn’t publish the volume itself.

--snip --

As rumors swirled about the contents of the Yalta papers and the true reasons they could not be released, New York Times reporter James Reston approached McCardle and offered to publish the Yalta records in full to prevent damage from their piecemeal release. On March 15, 1955, McCardle gave Reston a copy of the Yalta galleys. The Chicago Tribune quickly caught wind of the scoop and enlisted Illinois Senate Republican Everett Dirksen to demand that Dulles release the volume to everyone. Backed into a corner, Dulles cabled London to explain that he had no choice but to release the volume. Eden accepted the fait accompli.

There is much more, but that's enough to convince me of something I had thought about before. The WikiLeaks release of State Department cables was a reckless and juvenile imitation of the more mature high drama that has accompanied the FRUS series.

FYI, that Yalta FRUS volume is available here

Read More

Anxiously Awaiting Word On ...

But I maintain serene confidence in ADA and their new Chinese language proficiency.

Read More

Congressional Staff Bonuses - Worth Every Cent, I'm Sure

The press is at it again. Tearing down hard-working government employees for no good reason.

This time it's CNN, reporting that Congress pays $6.1 million in bonuses as it debates spending cuts:

Washington (CNN) -- Members of the House of Representatives reported up to $6.1 million in staff bonuses between January and March, giving out bonuses as they debated spending cuts and came within minutes of shutting down government over fiscal problems, a CNN investigation has found.

At least one congressman gave thousands of dollars to his own staff as he criticized other federal workers as being overpaid.

-- snip --

Members of both political parties reported bonuses, though Democrats outspent Republicans, with up to $3.1 million in staff bonuses compared with $908,000 for GOP members. The remaining $2.1 million CNN found was disbursed by committees. Committee spokesmen did not respond or were not able to delineate between Democratic and Republican staff members.

-- snip --

"These are congressional staffers getting bonuses while a lot of the constituents of the lawmakers are actually looking for jobs," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The bonuses came from an annual budget each member of Congress is given for staff, office space, travel and supplies. That allowance averages $1.5 million per year per office and is one of the few areas where each lawmaker has complete authority.

-- snip --

But many others confirmed that the expenses were bonuses and defended them. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-South Carolina, served as majority whip for four years when Democrats controlled the House. On January first and second of this year, immediately before Republicans took over, he gave out some $79,000 in bonuses to his leadership staff.

In a statement, Clyburn wrote: "My staff worked extremely hard, spending very long hours on the Hill including quite a few all-nighters and many weekends. I was fortunate to have a dedicated staff, and I rewarded them with an end-of-the-year bonus that came from the remaining unspent funds allocated to my office."

Ah, so that explains it. Congressional staffers work long hours - and even weekends! - so they're deserving of our gratitude. If a Congressman's office has unspent funds at the end of the year, which itself is a tribute to the staff's excellent financial management, why not just let the staff keep it? Who would begrudge them a little extra pay?



Maybe that guy who is playing the world's smallest violin would, but not me. Not me.

The CNN story continues:

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, similarly told CNN she didn't know if she'd given bonuses. She defended congressional staff in general.

"I think that for the most part, people work for very low wages, they work long hours and I think out of my staff I get very good service for the salaries they get," Foxx said.

-- snip --

[S]ome members of Congress who gave bonuses have railed publicly against federal worker pay. Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Florida, held a hearing on the subject in March and opened with a strong statement, saying, "Our taxpayers can no longer be asked to foot the bill for these federal employees while watching their own salaries remain flat and their benefits erode."

But as he criticized federal workers as being overpaid, Ross reported $8,750 in what looks like bonuses to his his own, personal office staff. His office did not respond to a request for clarification and comment.

He didn't respond, you say? Well, CNN, I expect that Representative Ross was far too busy doing the people's business late into the night and on weekends to take time out to answer your frivolous questions.

Read More

Dismal Report On Libyan Rebel Coalition

That rather devastating report from France on the composition of the Libyan rebel coalition is now available in English on the website of the Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement, one of the two organizations that produced it last month. Read it here.

This is the introduction:

It is hardly necessary to emphasise the nature of the dictatorship imposed, since 1969, by Muammar Gaddafi upon his populace. In the light of such a situation, nothing is more understandable than the wish to have more freedom and democracy.

Nonetheless the study undertaken of the facts leads us to confirm that the Libyan ‘revolution’ is neither democratic, nor spontaneous. It consists of an armed uprising in the Eastern part of the country, driven by revenge and rebellion, which attempts to pass itself off as part of the ‘Arab Spring’ which it in no way derives from. The Libyan insurgency cannot therefore be compared to the popular uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt.

More alarmingly, the TNC (Transitional National Council) is found to be a coalition of disparate elements with divergent interests, whose only common viewpoint is their
opposition to the existing regime.

The true democrats therein are only a minority and must live alongside ex members of Colonel Gaddafi’s government, those who want the return of the monarchy and those who want to implement radical Islam.

Consequently the TNC does not offer any guarantee for the future in spite of the democrats wishes, since the other factions will definitely steer the Council towards their own objectives.

Overall Libya is the only country of the ‘Arab spring’ in which the Islamic risk is increased. The Cyrenaica is an area of the Arab world that has sent the most jihadists to fight the Americans in Iraq.

It seems therefore that the Western powers have demonstrated a shameful adventurism by involving themselves in this crisis, unless it results from a completely cynical Machiavellianism. That which was supposed to be an easy victory has turned into a semi-­failure, that only the media conceal, because of the inconsistency of the rebels. The stalemate of the actions of the insurgents leaves the western nations only two possibilities; an inglorious retreat or an intensified involvement in the conflict, that involves sending in ground forces.

The Western intervention is in the process of creating more problems than it solves. It risks destabilising all North Africa, the Sahara, the near east, and assisting in the emergence of a new type of radical Islam or even terrorism in Cyrenaica.

The coalition may succeed perhaps in removing the Libyan leader. But the West must beware that his replacement may result in a more radical and even less democratic regime.

The original title of the report is Libye: un avenir incertain. Evidently, that translates into English as "a bucket of cold water thrown on humanitarian interventionist romanticism."

Read More