From the Los Angeles Times‘article Guantanamo Criticism Intensifies:

Critics of the war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo Bay have consistently assailed the coerced confessions that may be used as evidence against the defendants and have repeatedly charged that the prisoners’ severe isolation causes mental illnesses that make them unable to aid in their own defense.

Now, the critics add, evidence has emerged to show that the government advised interrogators to destroy their notes to evade legal consequences for their actions.

As the Bush administration revs up its prosecution of suspected terrorists ahead of the November election, defense lawyers and human rights advocates are ratcheting up their criticism of the offshore justice system.

The article goes on later to state:

Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler, the Navy lawyer defending young Canadian prisoner Omar Khadr, encountered the directive in an unclassified portion of the 2003 Guantanamo “standard operating procedures” manual that was in effect at the time Khadr was interrogated at the naval base.

Because the mission “has legal and political issues that may lead to interrogators being called to testify, keeping the number of documents with interrogation information to a minimum can minimize certain legal issues,” the manual notes.

It seems to me that the main reasons not to keep documentation on interrogations would include American interrogators being able to “plausibly” state when under oath “I can’t remember” when it comes to interrogation details, or because it directly allows these interrogators to lie on the stand because there is no documentation of interrogation details.

How does one end up with justice from a court system that allows for the destruction of evidence that could possibly have cast doubt on prisoner confessions? The answer, of course, is one doesn’t. That Guantanamo Bay trials are beginning just in time to make news for the November election seems to me to indicate that the goal isn’t justice — the timing of these trials looks like the intent was to assist in the election of Republicans.

I know I have a real problem with giving Republicans in the executive and legislative branches any further or continued control of the American justice system — It’s specifically because of how civil rights have been attacked by the current Republican administration. And hey, I just know I can’t be the only voter who’s thinking thoughts like these.

A round up of interesting news — well, at least it’s news I find interesting.

* Now here’s a quality protest event! Bay Area College Republicans Revolt — over beer tax proposal…

A group of Bay Area College Republicans took to the streets of San Jose Friday evening to protest a subject near and dear to them - beer.

More to the point, they wanted to rant about a state lawmaker’s proposed tax on beer manufacturers that would add nearly $2 to the price of a six-pack as a way to help the state plug its giant budget deficit.

…At the afternoon protest outside the office of Assemblyman Jim Beall, D-San Jose, about 50 students stood at a busy downtown intersection waving signs that read “Students Opposed to Unjust Taxation!” and “No Taxe$” as one student on a bullhorn chanted “No taxation on intoxication!”

That’s keeping priorities in perspective.

* The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Obama is picking up support and calories.

Waffles for breakfast and cheesesteaks for lunch, it’s all about eating as Barack Obama chows down to show his regular-guy credentials on the campaign trail.

PHILADELPHIA — The presidential candidate known for his eloquence on the stump was savoring a huge cheesesteak here when he looked up at the battery of photographers surrounding his table and reported: “I’m working through this sucker pretty good.”

Not the most poetic line from Barack Obama, but it captured the campaign’s central activity in the walk-up to this week’s Pennsylvania primary: Eating…

* From the San Francisco Chronicle: Anti-war Cindy Sheehan files to take on Pelosi. She’s made good on her threat to run against Pelosi if Pelosi didn’t start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan wants to snatch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat from her in November, but first she’s going to need the help - and signatures - of 10,198 friends and supporters.

Sheehan was at San Francisco City Hall on Friday to take out papers for her independent run for Congress, but without those signatures from voters in the district, her name won’t show up on the ballot.

“It’s an uphill battle,” said Sheehan, who vowed to run against Pelosi in July after the speaker refused to start impeachment proceedings against President George Bush. “But I’m excited about the signature-gathering process. It’s going to be an opportunity to talk to people about our campaign.”

* From the New York Times‘ Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats:

When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.

As we’ve seen this past week regarding protests against Day Of Silence participation, free speech and freedom of religion are often perceived by conservative Christians as only applying to them, — not to those who don’t share their views.

[After the fold, The Peter wants an FMA for civil unions too; a shark attack off a San Diego County beach; plagiarism in the pulpit; and penis thievery.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Per the Miami Herald article Goat abuse sparks outcry…

The case of a goat who was raped and killed has prompted a push for a bill that would outlaw bestiality in Florida.

Perhaps surprisingly to many, up until this point in time it’s been legal to have sex with barnyard (and other) animals in Florida.

Rich said she was as shocked as she was disgusted when she learned of the rape and asphyxiation last year of a family pet goat named Meg — who was pregnant with twins — in the town of Mossy Head in rural Walton County.

A suspect in the case, a 48-year-old man, is serving an 11-month, 29-day jail sentence on animal-theft charges in connection with the attempted abduction of another goat in a separate case, according to Walton County Assistant State Attorney James Parker.

Parker said he couldn’t prosecute the suspect in the death of Meg because DNA samples taken with a sheriff’s office rape kit were inconclusive.

Parker said he asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement last week to retest the evidence.

But even if there’s a DNA match, Parker said the suspect could only be charged with misdemeanor trespassing and animal cruelty, a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Parker said the suspect could not be arrested for bestiality because it isn’t a crime. The prosecutor added that the man is ”definitely a suspect” because he was arrested trying to take another person’s goat Feb. 3 shortly after Meg was choked to death from her collar that had been tightly held around her neck.

There are tee shirts, apparently.

One shirt depicts a goat saying “Baaa Means No!”

From the Miami Herald’s blogs comes this:

Sunrise Sen. Nan Rich’s proposal to make it a crime to have sex with animals (yes, it’s legal in Florida) finally got a hearing and a swift unanimous vote in the Senate Criminal Justice committee. Rich, a child’s rights advocate, said that those who abuse animals (sexually and otherwise) are likely to do the same to kids.

The bill was precipitated by the sex assault-related strangulation of a goat in Mossy Head, but other terrible tales have now surfaced.

Before the vote, Leon County prosecutor Michael Bauer sent Rich and other senators a letter recounting his troubles prosecuting the 2006 case of a blind guy who had sex with his male yellow Lab “Lucky.” The man explained “freely about his regular sexual activities with his dog and said he would take the dog for a walk prior to sex to ‘prevent fecal impact.’

Uh…yeah.

So far, the bill has yet to be heard in the Florida House. We can only hope there’s no clandestine reason why any similar bill hasn’t been heard in the Florida House as yet.

So marriage equality was voted against in Florida a few years back before the legislature has even considered getting around to banning sex with barnyard animals and dogs like “Lucky.” There’s got to be some irony to be found in Florida’s priorities, since one of the many arguments by conservative Christians against marriage of gays and lesbians has been that it would lead to the slippery slope of men marrying their pets.

Lambda Legal released a press release of a new lawsuit, filed in the Northern District Court of Indiana regarding West Side High School (Gary, Indiana) violated Kevin “K.K.” Logan’s First Amendment rights when it barred him from his prom for wearing a dress.

From the press release:

K.K. Logan attended West Side High during his junior and senior year and expressed a deeply rooted femininity in his appearance and demeanor. Both classmates and teachers at the school supported him in his daily attendance dressed in clothes typically associated with girls his age.

However, on May 19, 2006, Principal Diane Rouse stretched her arms across the door of the Senior Prom, blocking Logan’s entrance. His classmates and friends rallied to his defense to no avail — even though a female student was allowed entrance dressed in a tuxedo.

The message here is that being a male-bodied person in a dress — a Jane-Girl — is as bad as using drugs. That’s right — according to school policy, one can’t wear clothing that “advertises” drugs or sexual orientation. And let’s be clear, that means a female-bodied person wearing a tux isn’t advertising sexual orientation, but a male-bodied person wearing a prom dress is advertising sexual orientation. The policy is excerpted in the press release:

Principal Rouse has stood by a school policy that deems inappropriate any “clothing/ accessories that advertise sexual orientation, sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, profanity, negative social or negative educational statements.”

Lambda Legal’s public response (besides filing the lawsuit):

“The fact that sexual orientation is lumped in with drugs and profanity in the school’s dress code is just plain offensive, but even more troublesome is that the whole policy is in violation of students’ First Amendment rights,” said James P. Madigan, Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. “There are ways to write policies that both create rules for student behavior and also respect their rights — but this isn’t one of them.”

Lambda Legal argues that Logan’s First Amendment rights were violated, including the freedoms of speech, symbolic action, and expressive conduct. The school district also engaged in unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and gender.

K.K. Logan ended the press release with a significant statement:

I dress this way because it’s who I am and how I feel on the inside. Gay and trans students have rights, and they should be treated fairly.

For those who aren’t aware, this coming Sunday is Veterans Day. On the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s Blog The Frontlines, they have been running a series Honor Every Veteran, where LGBT bloggers are talking about their military service. Some of the veterans who’ve written so far have included:

- Former Air Force Staff Sergeant David Hall

- Former Army First Lieutenant Steve Boeckels

- Jeff McGowan, prior US Army Major

- Former Marine Sergeant Brian Fricke

I’m grateful the SLDN has given these veterans a voice on their blog.

My own military Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell story is profiled in the Gay & Lesbian Times’ current issue, in Joseph Peña’s piece Transgender Veterans: Beyond ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ transgender vets face different discriminations in the armed services.

Besides my personal story, the article focuses on a study by the Micheal D. Palm Center (University of California, Santa Barbara), entitled Gender Identity and the Military - Transgender, Transsexual, and Intersex Identified Individuals in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Quoting the Gay & Lesbian Times’ article regarding the Palm Center study:

With very little research done on transgender members of the military, Brown and Witten, along with Aaron Belkin at the University of California, Santa Barbara’s Palm Center, are anticipating issues transgender servicemembers may face.

Witten’s study is part one of a two-part study commissioned by the Palm Center, which studies sexual minorities in the military. She was asked to review and compile information on demographics and history for part one of the report. Part two will include testimonies of transgender veterans or active-duty servicemembers.

Brown has worked on voice-therapy studies and continues to work with transgender veterans. Both spoke at a forum during a World Professional Association for Transgender Health conference in Chicago in September.

Of the issues transgender veterans face, Brown and Witten said that access to medical benefits after retirement or discharge is one of the most important. There are medical issues unique to the transgender community. Often, transition requires therapy, hormone treatment and can include sexual reassignment surgery – all costly endeavors if the person does not have medical coverage. VAs, as is the case with all federal agencies, cannot provide sexual reassignment surgery, and treatment for transgender patients is limited.

Brown operated a clinic in Johnson City, Tenn. that worked with transgender veterans, but it was closed by federal officials who did not agree that the clinic served a purpose. Brown was cleared of any wrongdoing for serving the transgender patients. A similar clinic in New Orleans was also closed.

A VA-approved facility in Boston is fairly comprehensive in its treatment of transgender veterans, Brown said. The hospital has set standard operating procedures for how to manage veterans that are transgender, but within the VA system, it’s difficult to find allies.

Brown said VA doctors hesitate to treat transgender patients out of fear that it will affect their careers.

“Now people who do want to treat transgender vets are scared of the potential negative impact on their careers or the stigma,” he said.

Within the concept of honoring every veteran, we need to consider honoring every disabled veteran — whether they be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or intersex — with appropriate medical care. As a transgender veteran, let me espouse that we should be treating disabled transgender veterans within the VA medical system as the transgender people we are, and not how the religious right or others believe we should be.

Honoring every veteran — it’s something to think about this coming weekend, and something to think about in the weeks, months, and perhaps years to come.

~~~~~
Further Reading:
SLDN: Survival Guide [Section I. is on Transgender Individuals, page 16 of the document (page 24 of the PDF)]

No one had any hard questions for the deputy administrator [Vice Adm. Harvey Johnson] of FEMA, an agency deeply tarnished by its delayed action after Hurricane Katrina, when he held a news conference Tuesday to talk about the California wildfires.

“Are you happy with FEMA’s response so far?” someone asked.

Indeed, the deputy administrator was. “I am very happy with FEMA’s response so far,” responded Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson Jr.

The news conference looked like a success in the Bush administration’s effort this week to demonstrate it could respond competently to a disaster.On Friday, however, the agency admitted that the softball questions were posed by FEMA employees, not reporters.

So begins an L.A. Tmes story on the fake FEMA news conference held last Tuesday. The Washington Post apparently was the news organization that figured out the news conference was staged:

…[The news conference was v]ery smooth, very professional. But something didn’t seem right. The reporters were lobbing too many softballs. No one asked about trailers with formaldehyde for those made homeless by the fires. And the media seemed to be giving Johnson all day to wax on and on about FEMA’s greatness.

Of course, that could be because the questions were asked by FEMA staffers playing reporters. We’re told the questions were asked by Cindy Taylor, FEMA’s deputy director of external affairs, and by “Mike” Widomski, the deputy director of public affairs. Director of External Affairs John “Pat” Philbin asked a question, and another came, we understand, from someone who sounds like press aide Ali Kirin.

Asked about this, Widomski said: “We had been getting mobbed with phone calls from reporters, and this was thrown together at the last minute.”

But the staff did not make up the questions, he said, and Johnson did not know what was going to be asked. “We pulled questions from those we had been getting from reporters earlier in the day.” Despite the very short notice, “we were expecting the press to come,” he said, but they didn’t. So the staff played reporters for what on TV looked just like the real thing.

Nice.

Quoting the Washington Post again:

Heck of a job, Harvey.

~~~~~
Further Reading:
* White House condemns FEMA’s fake presser

* FEMA apologizes after sham news conference
* FEMA Official Involved In Staged News Conference Leaving The Agency