A Progressive on the Prairie

• It isn't like Rush or David Brooks admitting it, but Thomas Friedman is catching on. In his column Thursday, Friedman says Iraq is suffering on the altar of politics. Admitting he was wrong thinking the Bushies really were interested in Iraq, Friedman says, "There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that’s getting reelected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so."
  
  
• The Blogging of the President has a nice summary and relevant links to a recent academic thesis documenting the Bushies used 27 rationales for the Iraq war between September 12, 2001, and October 11, 2002.
  
  
• You knew it had to come but it's coming from all sides, the facially rational, the Arabic media and the "black helicopter" types: conspiracy theories on the death of Nicholas Berg.
  
  
• My erstwhile idol, Seymour Hersh, continues to show he has more going for him than 99.8 percent of the reporters half his age with his latest installment on the Iraq abuse saga in the New Yorker.

0 comments

That is the substance of a question raised by a reader a week or so ago and that's been percolating in my mind since. An article in today's Denver Post (via Atrios) provides a good opportunity to address it. Headlined Bishop draws line for voters, it says:

The bishop of Colorado's second-largest Roman Catholic diocese has issued a pastoral letter saying Catholics cannot receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage.

Only after citizens reverse their positions and repent for their sins in the confessional would access to the central ritual of the church be restored, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan instructed 125,000 Catholics in his charge.

Why is this relevant to South Dakota? There's good reason. In a homily at a "Respect Life" mass last October, Bishop Robert Carlson of the Sioux Falls Diocese said:

We live today in a sick society. Each one of us must recommit ourselves to being unconditionally pro-life. You cannot be a Catholic in good faith and vote for a pro-abortion candidate for public office when you have a choice. Regardless of your political party, you cannot be a Catholic legislator at the state level or congressman or senator at the national level and vote for abortion. Those that do, like Senators Kennedy, Daschle and Kerry are wrong and are a scandal for the Church.

(Emphasis added.) To ensure its widespread distrubiton, the homily was printed in the November 2003 Bishop's Bulletin, "a monthly newspaper for the 125,000 Catholics of East River, South Dakota."

You can't find the article itself on the Diocese's web site but the South Dakota GOP is more than happy to carry it on its web site. Moreover, another portion of the Diocese's web site discussing "Political Responsibility" repeats the homily's admonition that "no Catholic in good conscience can vote for a candidate that is pro-abortion or for euthanasia." It then adds: "To do so would be a contradiction of the most basic Catholic principles of faith. In addition, supporting a pro-abortion candidate sets people at odds against the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life." (See below regarding apparent omissions from this statement.)

What does this have to do with tax-exemption? It's simple. According to an IRS advisory issued April 28

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code that are exempt from federal income tax are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious organizations, including churches, are among those that are tax-exempt under this code section.

These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).

(Emphasis added). (An excellent discussion appears in A Guide for Religious Leaders by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.)

Granted, Carlson's statements do not threaten a voter with the loss of communion nor do they specifically say vote against Tom Daschle. But it likely is coming. Daschle wasn't a candidate at the time of the homily and this year's race against John Thune is just underway. (And although Stephanie Herseth has not been mentioned by Carlson or the Diocese to my knowledge, as noted the religious right has been happy to try and pin an "abortionist" label on her.) Moreover, just as John Kerry currently faces "Wafer Madness," GOP and right entities continually refer to a Weekly Standard article that ran about a year ago reporting that Carlson sent Daschle a letter instructing him not to identify himself as a Catholic in his congressional biography and campaign documents.

Everyone should keep a close eye on statements by Carlson and the Diocese as this election year proceeds. I also think we should be willing to ask the IRS to take a close look at them, too.

Finally, if there is any doubt this is candidate-driven, let's look at the omissions suggested above. In preparation for this year's election, in March the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a document called "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility." In a section called "Moral Priorities for Public Life," there is a discussion about "Protecting Human Life." As would be expected, it expresses opposition to abortion and euthanasia, the issues the Sioux Falls Diocese specifically refers to in instructing that political responsibity requires voting against anyone who disagrees with the church's position. Yet that same section also says: "While military force as a last resort can sometimes be justified to defend against aggression and similar threats to the common good, we have raised serious moral concerns and questions about preemptive or preventive use of force." (Emphasis added). It also states that "reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified."

Let's see just how "fair and balanced" South Dakota Catholics will be. What are the odds Bishop Carlson or any other Catholic leader in South Dakota will say sometime between now and November that "no Catholic in good conscience can vote for a candidate that supports the preemptive use of force or the death penalty"?
2 comments

Is That Legal? has some interesting observations on whether the abuse stories emerging in Iraq means the Justice Department lied to the Supreme Court. Edward Lazarus makes a similar but broader point in a FindLaw column that also touches somewhat on the topic of my last post.

0 comments

Although the Supreme Court is supposed to be immune from outside influences and pressure, the timing of the controversy surrounding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners could not have come at a better time for the lawyers challenging the Guantanamo detentions and the detention of US citizens as enemy combatants.

As respects Guantanamo, concerns of abuse or torture can't be discounted, especially since we are now seeing reports that much of the abuse at the Iraqi prisons started after a visit last summer by the man in charge of Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, who said he was going to "Gitmoize" the operation. Still, I think there is a more core issue that can't be overlooked and that is implicated by both Gitmo and the Hamdi and Padilla detentions.

A Red Cross report (warning, large PDF file) states that between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq were "arrested by mistake." Under the administration's scheme, though, detainees have no way to raise that question. As counsel for the Gitmo detainees mentioned in his opening statement at the oral arguments, under the Bush administration's view of the law, "the fact that they have been wrongfully detained [doesn't] makes the slightest difference."

This is even more pertinent to the Hamdi and Padilla cases. One of the issues presented the Supreme Court in Hamdi is whether the executive branch can detain an American citizen indefinitely in military custody with no opportunity to question the factual basis for his detention before an impartial tribunal. As his attorney told the Supreme Court: "We have never authorized detention of a citizen in this country without giving him an opportunity to be heard, to say, "Hey, I am an innocent person.'"

If the Red Cross statistics don't show why an impartial tribunal is essential if for no other reason than to say, "You've got the wrong person," almost nothing does.
0 comments

Herewith the first of sporadic posts of recent finds and links. No claim here to being the first (or even real timely) with the info, simply that this is a site or article worth at least checking into

• Paul Krugman puts the Iraqi prisoner scandal in perspective. It stems from the mantra, "Just Trust Us".
  
  
• Another perpsective comes from Anthony Lewis, who says it exemplifies a top-down culture of "respecting the law only when it is convenient."
  
  
• The Claim vs. Fact database started by the Center for American Progress. It "contains more than 400 separate quotes on all kinds of issues from top conservatives including Bush administration officials, members of Congress and Fox News personalities. The database contrasts these quotes with well-documented facts."
  
  
• Ian Welsh has a lengthy essay on American Mistakes in Iraq at The Blogging of the President: 2004.

0 comments