« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

February 2007 Archives

February 1, 2007

Molly Ivins

One of our great political commentators, Molly Ivins, died yesterday from breast cancer. She was only 62. She will be missed and she cannot be replaced.

Many people remember Molly Ivins as a good writer with biting wit and a good funnybone. But what I remember about Molly Ivins was a book she published a few years ago about George W. Bush, called Bushwacked. The title suggests this book was a collection of funny stories about Bush. But it's not. I took the book out of the library a few years ago and it was absolutely jam packed with facts and vignettes about Bush and his policies.

I only made it through 25 percent of Bushwacked. The book was too depressing and horrifying to finish. From what I could see, there were no jokes or funnybones. Just a factual account of Bush's world, and ours. I tend to finish the books that I start, but not this time. I returned the book to the library and the woman at the counter told me she had heard the book was depressing and tough to read. You ain't kidding, lady, I said.

I have since purchased Bushwacked and it's sitting on my shelf, waiting to be read. You should buy it, also (a used copy is only $1.50 on Amazon.com). It's the least you can do in memory of a woman who told it like it was and didn't give a shit what people thought. The political scene today is so dire that it takes a Molly Ivins to remind us how bad it is. We are in worse shape than you think. Only then can you know how to fix the problem.

In her last column, Ivins wrote this:

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"

No commentary from me is necessary to place that quotation in context. Except that we should do what Molly says.

February 4, 2007

Taking global warming seriously

The good news is that environmental experts are more convinced than ever before that the Earth is warming and that human activity is the primary reason. I say this is good news because we have been warned and also have someone to blame if the warnings are not followed. This report from the New York Times last week may be the most important story the newspaper has ever published:

The world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas from the atmospheric buildup of smokestack and tailpipe gases that trap heat, but warming can be substantially blunted with prompt action, an international network of climate experts said today.

In a report released here today, the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, in its fourth assessment since 1990 of the causes and consequences of climate change, for the first time expressed with near certainty - more than 90 percent confidence - that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases were the main drivers of warming since 1950.

Anyone watching Al Gore's documentary on global warming knows that this issue must be tackled immediately. Schoolkids in England are watching An Inconvenient Truth. Why not American kids? The documentary is easy to understand and follow and the visual evidence of global warming's impact will probably make the kids run home and hide the keys to their parents' SUVs.

I finally got around to watching An Inconvenient Truth this weekend. What struck me more than anything else was Al Gore's capacity to engage the viewer and explain the environmental catastrophe in a sober way. He threw in some outrageous anti-environmental statements by former Presidents Reagan and Bush, and there's a few seconds devoted to Gore's loss in the 2000 presidential election, but this guy has every right to be angry that the guy stewarding our environmental policies is dumber than a box of rocks. I kept thinking how ironic it was that the one guy who has devoted his career to exposing our most pressing issue (global warming) lost out to a guy who's in the pocket of the oil and gas industry.

If global warming is such a problem, how come voters are not responding at the ballot box? Because they are being lied to. Al Gore hinted at this in the movie, but I will go all the way: global warming makes some people a lot of money, and they will do anything to distract us. The people behind the propaganda that global warming is not a serious problem should be prohibited by law from holding any positions of responsibility for the rest of their lives. They should be made to work menial jobs (like burger flipper), and if they have Ph.D's or masters degrees, they can be given the night-time manager's position at McDonald's. Anything to get them away from positions of substance.

At the bottom of the barrel are the propagandists in the U.S. media who must think that environmentalism equals communism. Proving once against the Fox News is run by fourth grade interns, last week they had a "debate" on global warming by two nay-sayers. No surprise there, except that Fox New didn't tell us that these nay-sayers are affiliated with foundations with a vested interest in halting any environmental reform.

The country's most popular radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, also weighed in his effort to win the "ugly American" award. When the newspapers this weekend ran stories about the new global warming report, we saw photographs of polar bears stranded on these small icy islands. It's photos like this which will change the public's perception of global warming. I accept the notion that people in general don't give a crap about other people, but everyone loves animals. We cannot live with ourselves if polar bears are drowning because daddy wants a bigger SUV or Exxon/Mobil wants more profits.

Limbaugh has made a career out of being a social degenerate. He's not letting up. Last week, he joked about the polar bears with his ignorant listeners. This documented narcotics addict said:

This whole thing is totally misleading. They’re not even stranded on an ice floe that’s broken apart. They’re just out there just playing around. They’re just out there. You know, just like your cat goes to its litter box. When’s the last time your cat got stranded in its litter box? Just like your pit bull attacks and kills the neighbor’s baby horse, whatever, I mean these things happen. It’s called nature.

OK, so Limbaugh and Fox News represent the lunatic fringe in American society. What do our elected officials say? According to Associated Press:

Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" - including job losses - that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

"There is a concern within this administration, which I support, that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country would - may - lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad (to nations) that do not have such a carbon cap," Bodman said. "You would then have the U.S. economy damaged, on the one hand, and the same emissions, potentially even worse emissions."

President Bush used the same economic reasoning when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, an international treaty requiring 35 industrial nations to cut their global-warming gases by 5 percent on average below 1990 levels by 2012. The White House has said the treaty would have cost 5 million U.S. jobs.

News reports show that the Bush administration has restricted its officials from mentioning "global" and "warming" in the same sentence. Very little about the disgraceful Bush administration surprises me anymore, but this is quite shocking:

U.S. Rep. Peter Welch says it was a "stunning personal experience" to hear federal scientists say they had been stymied from talking about climate change.

"There was a story about a scientist who got authorized to speak at a conference. He was prohibited from using the phrase 'global warming.' He was allowed to say 'global,' and he could say 'warming,' but he couldn't put them next to each other. It became a charade," Welch said.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which Welch serves, is holding hearings on the administration's handling of the global warming issue. The panel's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the administration appeared to want "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Welch said he had read about scientists being muzzled, but, "It's a stunning personal experience to hear directly from scientists whose life work has been compromised, who live in fear of retaliation or compromised careers if they adhere to their code of ethics as scientists."

We are at a tipping point. We can continue to pollute the environment and destroy the only planet that gives us life, or we can live within our means and make the world habitable for our children and grandchildren. We can demand that the political parties adopt the platform of the Green Party and refuse to give our support for the rotting corpses now managing environmental policy in the United States.

More broadly, we can demand that the next President sign a binding promise to substantially reduce carbon emissions and also agree that he will leave office if he fails to do so within 100 days of taking office. And if he does not leave office on the 101st day, we can (literally) drag him out of the Oval Office and throw him out onto Pennsylvania Avenue. And we can put his personal possessions into a cardboard box and mail them to his home address. Or we can pursue less violent means to solve the problem.

February 6, 2007

How to throw money down the toilet bowl

Here's an idea: take your paycheck this Friday and flush it down the toilet. Then ask for an advance on your salary and flush that down the toilet. Hell, take everything you own and shove it into the toilet. If things don't fit, then make a bonfire in the front yard. Just save yourself a few pairs of underwear.

That's what's happening right now in pursuit of the Iraq war.

Iraq at Risk of Further Strife, Intelligence Report Warns

Washington Post
Friday, February 2, 2007

A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.

In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.

The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.

So what do we do when Iraq slides further into the hell-hole? Read on:

The Bush administration is seeking a record military budget of $622 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, Pentagon officials have said. The sum includes more than $140 billion for war-related costs.

The administration is also seeking $93 billion in the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, to pay for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the officials said.

So will all this money help in Iraq? Probably not. The National Intelligence Estimate, a government operation which advises the President on the war, says the situation is dire: "Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism. Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress during the term of this Estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006."

On the other hand, the National Intelligence Estimate says that "'Rapid withdrawal' of U.S. forces would likely lead to a 'significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq.'"

So we are damned if we stay in Iraq and we are damned if we leave. When things start to rot, blame the man with the money. That's President Bush, who ain't apologizing for nuthin'. But we have the next best thing: the Republican Majority Leader who voted for war in October 2002 says he did not have the guts to say No and defy the President. Here's excerpts from an interview with this hard-line Republican:

Q. Your views on the Iraq war?

A. I'm not sure that it was the right thing to do. You might say removing Saddam from power was a right thing to do. Maybe it was, but was that necessarily then our responsibility to do that? And was it our responsibility to do that by invading a country that had no way declared any war on us?

Q. You voted for the resolution to go to war.

A. I did, and I'm not happy about it. The resolution was a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so.

With a name like Dick Armey, you know that his apology means something.

February 7, 2007

Intellectual whores . . . anyone buying?

The international global warming report that came out last week confirms that global warming is more serious than we thought and that human activity is probably the reason for it. Of course, there is a lot of money in pollution and the energy industry has a vested interest in fostering doubt where very little doubt remains on this life or death issue.

We know that the energy industry has sponsored reports and studies intended to refute the consensus on global warming. This time around, they're too lazy to write the reports themselves. Instead, they are offering big bucks for an intellectual whore to debunk the widely-accepted report.

A right-wing American think tank is offering 10,000 dollars (7,700 euros) to scientists and economists to dispute a climate change report set to be released by the UN's top scientific panel, media reported. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which receives funding from oil giant ExxonMobil according to the Guardian, sent letters to scientists in the United States, Britain and elsewhere offering the payments in exchange for articles emphasising the shortcoming of the UN's report.

AEI also reportedly offered additional payments, and to reimburse travel expenses.

The report, due to be released Friday in Paris by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), is likely to give a bleak assessment of the damage to the future of the environment.

It is the culmination of four days of debate between more then 500 scientists at a closed-door meeting in Paris, who have been poring over the first review of the scientific evidence for global warming in six years.

AEI's letters characterize the IPCC report as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and request articles that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs," The Guardian said.


February 9, 2007

Bits and Pieces

Some news from around the world to make your day . . . or make you very angry, or both. First on the list is a story from the local paper that a school district is preventing students from performing an original anti-war song at a school function. You known damned well that if the kids wrote a "patriotic" song no one would be censoring it. After four long years in Iraq, a few thousand Americans dead, many more of them wounded and a majority of the population against the war, an anti-war song at school is still too controversial for some school districts in the blue state of New York.

Better news is a mistrial for the soldier who doesn't want to fight in Iraq.

A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada Time Magazine

The highly anticipated court-martial of Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq ended in a mistrial on Wednesday, a surprising development that left military prosecutors clearly frustrated, observers stunned and defense attorneys claiming that the military had blown its only chance at a conviction.

"Our hope is that at this point the Army will realize that this case is a hopeless mess," said Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, speaking at a press conference shortly after the mistrial was declared.

Watada, based at Fort Lewis, just south of Seattle, said he refused to go to war with his unit last June because he had come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is illegal. In conversations with his superiors, in media interviews and at the court-martial this week he contended that his Army oath required him not to follow what he called an "illegal order" to deploy.

The war at home rages on though . . .

Records Show Extra Scrutiny of Detainees in ’04 Protests By JIM DWYER New York Times Feburary 8, 2007

When more than a thousand people were swept up in mass arrests during the 2004 Republican National Convention, defense lawyers complained in court that the protesters had to wait much longer to see a judge than those accused of far more serious crimes like robbery or assault.

Now, newly released city records not only put precise numbers to those claims, but also show the special scrutiny the New York Police Department gave to people arrested in or near the convention protests.

At the height of the mass arrests, on Aug. 31, 2004, demonstrators — and some people who said they were bystanders just swept up by the police — were held for an average of 32.7 hours before they saw a judge, according to city statistics. For people charged with crimes that the police decided were not related to the convention, the wait to see a judge was just under five hours.

Finally, the wack-jobs are making inroads . . . If you don't have kids, you can't get married.

Ballot measure would require couples to have kids By RACHEL LA CORTE Associated Press Posted February 7 2007, 11:15 AM EST

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.



February 11, 2007

No mousetrap large enough

I thought I heard Laura Bush asking her husband to set some mouse traps to get rid of the vermin in the White House. The problem is that there is no trap large enough to trap Dick Cheney and throw him out into the dumpster behind the presidential palace.

There's where Cheney belongs. His latest crime is something he did 30 years as Chief of Staff to President Ford, the guy who became president when Richard Nixon resigned during the Watergate scandal. Everyone thought Ford was an honest guy who would lead the country through the days of scandal, but Cheney was trying to turn back the clock the the good old days of Nixon's enemies list.

In 1975, after investigative reporting got a real shot in the arm following Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate reporting for the Washington Post, another legend, Seymour Hersh was uncovering all kinds of skulduggery in the U.S. government. Cheney would have none of it! He wrote out a list of options for dealing with Hersh's nosy reporting. Here were the options, according to today's New York Times:

Mr. Cheney considered possible responses to the article. One was to “seek immediate indictments of NYT and Hersh.” A second was to get a search warrant “to go after Hersh papers in his apt.”

Next to last: “Discuss informally w/ NYT.”

Last: “Do nothing.”

In the end, the administration pursued the last option, based largely on the advice of Attorney General Edward H. Levi.

That's right. One of the options was to search Hersh's home for his notes and another option was to seek an indictment against the New York Times.

The Times today has a great photocopy of Cheney's handwritten notes in which he calmly and methodically wrote out what to do about Seymour Hersh, one of this country's greatest investigative reporters. Click here to see the notes and to read the broader article about Cheney's authoritarian practices and how they connect with the trial of Scooter Libby, his Chief of Staff in the Bush White House.

February 12, 2007

The Fugitive

Some weeks the New York Times Magazine is devoid of anything interesting other than the real estate listings for the rich folk who can drop a few million on a Park Avenue penthouse. But this time around the Times outdid itself with a profile of a guy who was convicted for rape in the early 1980's, escaped from prison in a death-defying bolt to freedom, only to be exonerated last year through DNA testing. He committed petty crimes in the meantime. I am reprinting the article in full, a must-read.

February 11, 2007
Fugitive
By JIM DWYER

"Orlando."

In a dim, nearly deserted Everglades farm stand, nothing moved.

Orlando Boquete, hybrid of youth and age — his body springy and athletic at 52, but knitted to a startlingly ancient head — peered at the stalls through thick eyeglasses.

Other than a faint buzz, the shimmer of heat trapped in a tin roof, the word “Orlando” was the only sound.

An impatient companion called to him.

“Orlando. Hey, Orlando.”

Not a flicker, head to toe. For more than a decade, Orlando Boquete lived as a fugitive, his very identity a shackle he slipped out of, again and again. He hid bits of sandpaper in his wallet so that in a pinch, he could abrade his fingerprints. Every bit as revealing as the ridges of his fingers, the ordinary, reflexive responses to his own name — a grunt, a sideways glance, a shifting foot — also vanished under the grind of fugitive life. It was as if someone had suddenly clapped hands in front of his eyes and he did not blink. Standing still, not saying yes or hello or uh-huh became a martial art.

The word “Orlando” floated in the thick, steaming air, then sank without trace into the wizened face.

Technically, he was no longer running from anyone, so this denial was vestigial habit. He could say who he was. He lifted a mango, rolled the fruit in the palm of his hand, half-smiled and turned to greet the man behind the counter. He announced that he was Cuban. Then he asked a question.

“Es Mejicano?”

The fruit man nodded, yes, he was Mexican.

At that, the words erupted from Boquete’s mouth, personal history as volcanic rush.

“These Mexicans in the sugar-cane fields helped me,” he began. “Twenty-one years ago, when I escaped from Glades, I hid with them. Right here, by choo-choo.”

He pointed toward the railroad tracks, but the fruit-stand man did not shift his blank gaze. It was almost possible to see him rewind to the phrase “when I escaped from Glades.”

On the way into the town of Belle Glade, the welcome sign in this capital of sugar cane declares, “Her Soil Is Her Fortune,” but another gravitational force goes unmentioned: Glades Correctional Institution, the state prison one mile down the road. The prison had brought Orlando Boquete to Belle Glade, but it could not keep him there.

He started speaking in gusts of alternating language, Spanish one sentence, English the next phrase, a saga of life in flight — of hiding places in the sugar cane, disguises that tricked the police, gratitude to the Mexicans who helped him.

Fugitivo.

The fruit man did not bother to mask his anxiety. As he listened to Boquete, he slid the mango off the counter, with no sign that he was going to bag the purchases of this garrulous criminal. Boquete realized he should present his bona fides. He turned and pointed to me — here, this white newspaper writer from New York has come to look at the canals where he hid with alligators, the mucky fields where he crawled like a snake.

“I don’t read newspapers,” the fruit man said blankly.

At Boquete’s shoulder, his nephew, José Boquete, spoke into his ear.

“Tío,” he said. And he stage-whispered into his uncle’s ear, “DNA.” Not missing a beat, the older man spoke the word “exonerated” and the abbreviation DNA and finally, three more letters that registered with the fruit man.

“CNN,” Boquete said.

“Ahh,” said the fruit man, who pointed to the television in the fruit stand, reciting the shards of the tale that lodged in his memory. A Cubano broke out of Glades Correctional. He ran for years. Then he was caught. And finally, he was proved innocent. There must be more to the story, but it was enough for the fruit man. He pushed the mango across the counter. On the house. Boquete protested. The fruit man insisted.

By Feb. 6, 1985, the night he fled prison, Orlando Boquete, 30 years old, had already spent two years behind bars for a sexual assault and burglary he had nothing to do with, the victim of a victim who mistook him for the man who climbed in her window. Ahead of him, as far as the eye could see, were mountains of time: five decades.

He bolted.

Of the 194 people exonerated by DNA tests since 1989, only Orlando Boquete undid society’s mistake by fleeing. And he kept undoing it: over the next decade, he was in police custody again and again, only to vanish in a forest of identities that were false, borrowed and stolen. His prison break was the start of a decadelong journey of near-disaster and daring inches, with no money, no home, no name — but with good looks, charm and a quick mind. Craving family and a bed to call his own, Boquete instead found refuge in an underworld of outlaws. “I did certain things that I had to do,” he said. “To survive. But I never, never harmed anyone.”

He would appear at family gatherings, enchanting the children in stolen moments when he again became, without worry, Orlando Boquete. Then he would quietly slip behind the mask of fugitive life. (A niece, Danay Rodriguez, remembers her parents coming home with a flier that showed her tío Orlando as one of the state’s most wanted men — a mistake, the grown-ups assured her.) He held dozens of jobs, legal and illegal; at times, he worked as legitimately as someone with a fake name could. Other times, he worked por la izquierda, on the left — meaning, he said, under the table.

He had always been good at running. Boquete (pronounced bo-KETT-eh) boarded a shrimp boat in the port of Mariel, Cuba, in 1980, when he was 25, leaving behind one son, two marriages, a career as a diesel mechanic in Havana and a jail record as a Cuban Army deserter — this last credential essential, he believed, to helping him clear bureaucratic hurdles for departing Cuba. He joined 125,000 Cubans, known as Marielitos, who formed an extraordinary exodus that year, when Fidel Castro felt pressure from a poor economy and allowed them to leave.

For two years, Boquete led a life that was pretty much on the level. He worked construction, then in Cafetería La Palma in Miami’s Little Havana and later as clerk in a convenience store on the midnight-to-dawn, no-one-else-will-do-it, armed-robbery shift. By June 1982, Boquete was living with an uncle in a trailer in Key West, hoping for work as a commercial fisherman along the archipelago.

On June 25, with the summer heat at full blast, he had a cousin shave his head of thick black hair, leaving only a mustache. That night, various Boquetes later testified, they sat in the trailer, watching baseball and the World Cup from Spain. Afterward, they strolled to a Tom Thumb convenience store for cigarettes and beer. As they approached, police officers asked them to wait in the parking lot. Another police car pulled up. Inside was a woman who had awoken from a sound sleep in her bed in the Stock Island apartments, a few blocks away, to find a man on top of her. He ejaculated on her bedclothes. He had no hair on his face, she said, and a buzz cut on his head. Another man lurked in the apartment with him, she said, but had not taken part in the assault. They grabbed a few items and left.

From the police car, the victim saw Orlando Boquete and told the officer, “That’s him.” Although he had a prominent mustache, he was the only person in the vicinity with a shaved head. That single glimpse shaped Boquete’s life for decades.

Before trial, the prosecutors offered him a deal: plead guilty and give evidence against the other man who had broken into the apartment, and he would have to serve only one year in jail, followed by two years probation.

On the witness stand, Boquete explained why he had declined. “If my freedom depends on my falsely stating that I’m a culprit or guilty,” he said, “I would rather go to jail. I’m conscious of the fact that if the gentlemen of the jury and the ladies of the jury, if they vote against me, they are going to destroy my life, and I’m not afraid to stand here.”

Besides the alibi provided by his cousins and uncle, the defense seemed to hold one other card. A second man, Pablo Cazola, was arrested for the attack and pleaded guilty. He also signed an affidavit stating that Boquete was not his accomplice. But he refused to testify at trial. At the time, DNA testing — the ultimate proof of identity — had not yet been used in court. So the jury was left to weigh the eyewitness identification of a very confident victim, on the one hand, against the alibi of Boquete and his relatives, all of whom testified he had spent an evening watching television and drinking beer.

It was January 1983, a particularly poor moment for a Marielito accused of a violent crime; there had been many fevered stories about their supposed rampant criminality. Convicted after brief deliberation, Boquete was sentenced to 50 years for the burglary and another five years for attempted sexual battery. The case was over and, so it seemed, was the life Orlando Boquete had sought in America. He was 28 years old.

He moved into the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections with one treasured possession, he told me, passed along by an inmate he met in the county jail: a Spanish-language edition of “Papillon,” the prison memoir that became a movie starring Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. It is the account of Henri Charrière, who wrote — perhaps accurately, though some scholars are skeptical — of his many escapes from French penal colonies over the years.

“This is a real book,” Boquete told me. “He gives to you power. Esperanza. Hope.”

He set about adapting Charrière’s lessons to his own life, finding principles and tactics that could transfer from penal colonies of the 1930s to a state prison in Florida in the mid-1980s. On one occasion, Charrière was undone by an informant. The lessons, by Boquete’s light: study and silence. “Be patient if you want to escape from somewhere,” Boquete said. “You have to be observant. Don’t run your mouth.”

He studied the terrain. Two fences ran around Glades Correctional. The first was short, easily scalable. Between it and the second was a strip of boundary area, about 10 feet wide, mined with pressure detectors. A footstep would set off alarms. Beyond the boundary was the second fence, about 15 feet, with curls of razor wire running along the ledge. Guards watched from towers, but the pursuit of escapees was left to officers who circled the perimeter in a van, on a road just beyond the outer fence.

A natural, compact athlete, Boquete ran every day, processing the details of prison life. Inmates occasionally were taken by a shotgun squad to work in sugar-cane fields near the prison. On one such excursion, Boquete saw a swampy irrigation canal, about 300 yards beyond the outer wall. It served as a moat, complete with resident snakes and alligators. This gave him pause. “Alligators have territory,” he explained. “If they have babies over there, and you go there, you’re in trouble.”

He made a pinpoint search for useful, secret-worthy inmates and found one man from the town of Belle Glade, who agreed to map the roads and landmarks. He was staked $30 by a Colombian inmate with ties to organized crime.

Charrière wrote in “Papillon” of the ocean waters around Devil’s Island, noting that every seventh wave slapped against the shore with greater strength than the ones that came before or after. Ultimately, he marshaled the power of a seventh wave to get clear of the island. At Glades, Boquete timed the orbit of the van, to see how long he would have from the moment he triggered the ground alarms until his pursuers could get back to him. About a minute, he figured.

In “The Fugitive,” a movie starring Harrison Ford, an innocent man on his way to death row seizes a chance to run for his life. In the unyielding reality of prison, innocent people often do the precise opposite of running. They dig in their heels. Many go before parole boards and refuse to apologize for “their” crimes, unwilling to offer themselves as exemplars of how the penitentiary really is a place of penance. In Pyrrhic glory, these innocent people prolong their incarceration by refusing to fake remorse for things they did not do, while the guilty quickly learn that the carrot of parole awaits those who muster the necessary show of contrition.

Even if Boquete had been willing to profess regret for something he had not done, parole was years away. Still, running would inevitably land him in a purgatory of deception and evasion. Moreover, the law does not permit innocent people to flee prison any more than it permits them to resist arrest. The guards would be armed and ready to shoot.

“I know that can happen,” he reflected years later. “I don’t care. If they kill me, anyway, I’m gone. I finish my sentence. I was ready, physically, mentally, spiritually. I don’t be scared about nothing when I escaped. Only a little scared of alligators.”

The evening of Feb. 6, 1985, was miserable, wet and cold. Perfect. “Nobody likes to jump in the cold water,” Boquete said of the guards. “Nobody wants to stay in the sugar-cane fields in the cold weather. The cold weather makes their job more difficult.”

Just before 8 p.m., as he sorted carrots on an assembly line, he caught the eye of George Wright, a 29-year-old man serving 75 years for robbery. Boquete said they had joined forces while jogging in the yard; Wright, who is back in prison and due to be paroled next month, has a somewhat different version of events but declined, through a relative, to be interviewed.

They slipped outside, unnoticed, and walked past the prison’s construction warehouse. They grabbed a door frame someone had left out for them to use in scaling the two fences, Boquete said, then pulled the frame with them over the first fence. Now they were on the pressure-alarmed land. The 60-second clock started running. They propped the frame against the tall fence, then scrambled up to the barbed wire summit. Boquete, who stands 5-foot-4, went first. He briefly got in the way of the 6-foot-4 Wright, who simply brushed past him.

Once they hit the ground outside, they sprinted to the wide, swampy irrigation canal. They paused, caught their breaths. In the distance, they could hear the dogs. Boquete had steeled himself for this moment, but in his heart, had hoped that perhaps he would not have to get into the water. The advance of the dogs convinced him. They had no choice. They plunged ahead and never saw each other again.

Soon, the baying of the hounds was joined by another sound: the beat of helicopter rotors. Boquete immersed himself, surfacing his nose for a gulp of air, seeing beams of a searchlight sweeping across the fields and water. The dogs barked. He had no religious upbringing but wore a crucifix on a chain around his neck, and he put the cross in his mouth to calm himself.

He later guessed that he had been in the water two hours or so, most of it fully submerged, when he finally pulled himself, shivering, onto the bank of the canal. He crawled on his belly into a field, then dug a shallow burrow with his hands. He dropped into the hollow and covered himself with dirt and grass. He could hear his pursuers shout. He tried to lie still.

Something pinched his face. Then one arm. Thousands of biting ants, resident in his hideout, swarmed over his skin. He shielded his eyes with his hands, and listened as the clatter of the search receded. Finally Boquete climbed out of the canal on the same bank that he went in, the prison side of the moat. His pursuers expanded their search but he had hardly gone any distance. As they moved on, he oriented himself, then half-crawled to an orange grove. He ate five oranges, slumped under a tree, ant-bitten, filthy, exhausted. He was quite happy. This grove was near railroad tracks, a less conspicuous route than the main road. The next stop was a sugar-cane field. There, he dug another hole, and after checking for ants, covered himself and slept.

At daylight, he moved like a snake, belly-crawling short distances, cringing when the cane rustled or popped, then pausing to listen. With a small knife he peeled bits of the cane to eat.

He was running for his life, but barely moving. After his second night in the fields, he saw farm workers nearby and realized he had lingered near the prison long enough. He crossed four more canals, the last so wide that he worried he would not make it to the other side. Finally, he reached the railroad tracks, picked up a stick and, bent like a hobo, followed the rails southwest toward Belle Glade.

By late afternoon, he had emerged from the apron of farmland on the prison outskirts and came to Avenue L. Across the road, big trucks were lined up, leaving for everywhere; the map had shown a depot. In the escape of his imagination, he simply hopped a truck; as a tireless runner in the prison yard, he had not foreseen the toll of a slow-motion sprint. He was spent.

Just east of the tracks was a pay phone. Surely, the authorities would be checking with all the relatives who had visited him. He dialed a cousin in Miami. She was shocked to hear his news; the family knew nothing of his escape. He proposed that she pick him up.

She hesitated.

“No, mi primo, no,” she said. No, my cousin, no.

He would stay clear, he told her; she should not worry, he said. “No se preocupe.”

He hung up.

Just beyond the pay phone, a few Mexican migrants idled in front of shacks. The Belle Glade man had told him he might be able to take refuge with them.

It was two full days since he had escaped from Glades Correctional Institution; he had risked getting maimed on razor wire, shot by guards, mauled by dogs, eaten by alligators, poisoned by snakes. It had taken every ounce of strength in his fleet, 30-year-old body to avoid those fates, and he had covered all of 1.2 miles. He was transformed: the innocent person, wrongly accused, now was an outlaw who could be shot on sight. He didn’t care.

“Oye, hermanos,” Boquete called. “Necesito ayuda.”

Hey brothers, I need help.

The Mexicans looked at the bedraggled specimen. Then one of them spoke, Boquete recalled.

“He says, ‘Why do you need help?’ I said, ‘I need help because I run from immigration.’ ”

A day later, one of them asked the logical question: why was a Cuban running from immigration, since Cubans were never deported?

“I tell them the truth. And they laugh, and said, ‘Oh, that was you.’ Because one of them got stopped the night I escaped. They heard the helicopters.”

He worked in the fields for two months, picked up every morning in a truck. Had anyone been looking for the fugitive in the first few days, it is possible that his swollen face would have been hard to recognize. By springtime, he and the migrants decided to pool their earnings and head for Miami. They bought a car for $800. It was mid-April, about 10 weeks after the breakout. Somewhere, Boquete had acquired an Army uniform. Raw as Boquete’s English was, the Mexicans had none. He would drive.

On the road south, a radiator hose burst. As Boquete patched it, a police car stopped. He spoke a phrase he had used often in the previous two years.

“Yes, officer?” he said.

What was going on, the cop wanted to know. Boquete explained about the radiator hose. “Be careful,” the officer advised.

He was. The Mexicans dropped him in Miami, near Little Havana.

Though Boquete’s escape was brave and harrowing, his flight does not particularly distinguish him. In the 1980s, the Florida prisons virtually leaked prisoners: 972 prisoners broke out the year Boquete ran, 1,234 the next year and 1,640 the year after. Most walked away from work crews. Prisoners also left in file cabinets, garbage trucks, dressed as women. From Glades, six murderers dug a tunnel from a chapel, a spectacular breakout that roused alarm and moved state officials to clamp down. The trick was not just getting out but staying out. After the initial burst of excited hunting around a prison, the pursuit of fugitives can be anemic; the search for Boquete and Wright lasted four hours. Prisoners are less often caught than found, unable to sustain endless caution in their affairs. Somewhere, they trip a bureaucratic circuit — they use or respond to their real name, are arrested for crimes much like those that brought them to prison or are bartered by someone else trying to get out of trouble. George Wright, who escaped with Boquete, avoided the authorities for a year and a half, then was caught in the Pacific Northwest.

Boquete turned himself into a hermit crab, sheltered in identities abandoned or left by the dead, an endless scuttle. A résumé, pieced together from his memories and public records, traces a route of dizzying turns and determination.

He worked in sugar-cane fields and danced in the Orange Bowl when Madonna came to perform “La Isla Bonita.” He hauled food in the Florida Keys as a truck loader and sledgehammered into the wall of a clothing store in Miami as a burglar.

He learned to ride a Jet Ski. He taught nieces and nephews to snorkel. He washed dishes in a New Jersey restaurant and ran errands for players in the underground economy of South Florida. One night, with cash in his pocket, he settled at the bar of a fancy hotel in North Miami and proclaimed that he was a boxing trainer who had just won a big bet on a Hector Camacho fight. He bought rounds of drinks for the house and met a real-estate woman from New York. They jogged together on the beach.

All those years, he walked barefoot along a borderline as thin and treacherous as the blade of a knife, the boundary between tension and exhilaration, where freedom was just one unguarded moment — Hey, Orlando! Oye, Boquete! — from vanishing.

He called himself Antonio and Eddie and Hilberto, dead or missing people whose Social Security numbers kept a pulse for a year or so after their demise. A half-dozen times, Boquete said, he was arrested while a fugitive: some of his benefactors left unfinished court business when they departed, and Boquete inherited their petty troubles: drunk-and-disorderly summonses, driving under the influence. He did a week here, 30 days there, he said. He also got into trouble of his own devising.

Rolling his freshly sanded fingertips into police ink pads, he was not connected by the authorities to the man who owed five decades of time to the state. It was simple enough for him to do the short bits, not that he had much choice. In the early days of a six-month sentence, he simply walked away from a jail work crew, making him a fugitive under two identities.

He agreed to take me back over some of the territory he had covered. We traveled through 300 miles of southern Florida, hunting for traces of the self he had worked to keep invisible.

After his Mexican patrons dropped him off in Miami, he returned to Little Havana, a place he knew well. On one of his first days back, with nothing in his pockets, he followed an acquaintance to a utility room in an apartment complex. Someone was using the space to hoard stolen goods, and they found a boom box with detachable speakers. They sold it in three parts. He found a room in an apartment on Northwest Seventh Avenue and took a job at a grocery store, and anywhere else he could find work with no unanswerable questions asked.

The 1980s were years of staggering opportunity and danger in that part of the world. South Florida was the loading ramp for the illegal-narcotics trade in the United States. The Miami River runs through Little Havana. “Lots of boats,” Boquete said. “Lots of drugs.” Some had been handled by a woman he knew as a child in Cuba. Around 1987, she was caught in a federal drug case and was being held in central Florida. She sent word back to Little Havana that she needed clothing, cigarettes and money. Boquete said he went along for the ride to prison, but others in the car balked at going inside, so he did. “I told the guard that everyone else was afraid to see her, I don’t have ID, but I am her cousin,” Boquete said. “They took the clothes.” He relished the audacity of that visit. From the first moments of his escape, when he doubled back toward the prison, hiding in plain sight had proved both tactically shrewd and psychically satisfying.

One of the people who helped him get by — the man who led Boquete to the boom box on his first day back — went on to prosper in the drug trade. On the condition that he be identified only as Ulises because of his own legal problems, the man spoke with wonder at Boquete’s stamina, the new homes every few weeks. “He was not really involved in our group,” Ulises told me. Still, there were many groups and plenty of mundane, if risky, work.

“This guy, Kiki, asked me to hold a package for this guy who would come to my apartment that night,” Boquete said, recalling one incident. Though he did not open it, he guessed that it was a kilogram of cocaine. That evening he heard a car pull up. From the window, he saw a uniformed police officer. In a panic, Boquete dialed his contact. “I tell him, ‘The police are here!’ ” he said. “He said, ‘That’s right, just give him the package.’ ”

Even innocent moments could turn harrowing. One night, he stayed at a friend’s apartment after a party. In the morning, he washed dishes with the front door open. A figure appeared in the corner of his eye.

“Hey, Boquete!” said the man.

Boquete did not lift his gaze from the suds. The man — a uniformed police officer — stood in the doorway calling his name, and finally, Boquete asked what he wanted. A team of officers was on the scene, apparently tipped off to the presence of a fugitive. In a few minutes, all the Mexicans and Cubans in the building were lined up outside.

“If you’re looking for this Boquete, why don’t you bring a picture of him?” Boquete said he demanded.

Another man grumbled loudly about suing for some indeterminate civil rights violation, Boquete recalled, and the officers eventually withdrew.

The encounter rattled him. To find some peace, he flew to Illinois in 1990 and got work in a Weber grill factory. He called himself Antonio Orlando Moralez, a real Marielito who was killed while Boquete was in prison. (The company, Weber-Stephen, does not have payroll records from that time and could not confirm his employment.) A cousin of Moralez’s, who did not want to be named because of immigration concerns, said of Boquete, “He didn’t do anything wrong, and he needed help, so I gave him my cousin’s Social Security number for him to work under.”

The change relaxed Boquete; he did not feel himself under direct police scrutiny. After a year or so, though, worried about how long the Moralez identity would hold up, he moved again, back to Miami for a while, and then to Arizona. It was 1991; he’d been on the run for six years. He was starting to wear down. He returned to Miami, apathetic about being recaptured.

“I was hanging out on the street,” he said, meaning his living came from activities outside the law. One day, he and two other men broke into a clothing store. As they drove off with the loot, a police car followed. They tried to speed away and heaved stolen clothes out of the car, but were quickly caught. In the back of the car was the sledgehammer they used to enter the store. Boquete gave his name as Eduardo Jeres, and a judge put him on probation.

At 37 years old, he had no checkbook, credit cards or bank accounts; he lived with his money, the cash hidden under the kitchen floor of an apartment on 27th Avenue. He welded bars on the windows and doors.

For all that caution, he had not broken out of one prison just to live in another. He often dropped in on his family, went swimming with the children and doted on Danay Rodriguez, his half-brother’s daughter. “He watched us when our parents went out,” said Rodriguez, now 24, recalling that he would bring her the White Diamonds perfume she loved as a girl. To visit them was a heart splurge. They lived aboveground. He could not.

In the summer of 1992, hungry for a quieter, more domestic life, he sent for a nephew, José Boquete, 12, then living in California, to stay with him in Miami while school was out. “I love him from when he was a baby, when he first came from Cuba,” Boquete said. He had a son back in Cuba, not much older. The family trusted him, Boquete said.

For José, it was a thrilling summer. He made friends in the apartment complex. His uncle indulged him and charmed the neighbors. “I made a best friend right away,” José said. “My uncle had these parties, just barbecues, and people came to hang out. It was the greatest.”

One day in August, young José watched the canaries his uncle kept in a cage flapping their wings in agitation. The birds had detected the approach of Hurricane Andrew, soon to become the second-most-destructive storm in United States history.

“I asked my uncle, ‘What’s happening?’ He said, ‘Don’t worry about it, everything’s O.K.,’ ” José recalled. “He just stayed there on the sofa.”

Behind his barred door, Boquete was content, unwilling to fight a storm. Afterward, with electricity knocked out for days, he rigged a line from a car battery into the apartment and even scavenged contraband ice.

At the summer’s end, José returned to California. His uncle looked for work: the hurricane was a boon to the construction trades, and Boquete found odd jobs at a small company, Fantasy Cabinets, which had contracts with police stations and jails, said Mercy Fleitas, who ran the business with her husband, Serafín.

The Fleitas household knew Boquete as Loquito, the little crazy one, for the high-speed pace he kept at work and play. They did not realize that the wiry man was a fugitive. But Mercy Fleitas had a vivid memory of his anxiety about going into a correctional facility where they were doing work. And nearly 15 years later, hearing about his true identity and exoneration, Fleitas remembered a strong streak of decency.

“You know what about him?” she said. “My husband’s brother had died, and he couldn’t do enough for the kids. He was always bringing them food.”

His life was far from tranquil. Tipped off by a trailer-park neighbor that he was “hot,” Boquete drifted to North Carolina, settling in a rural area before returning again to Florida. At times, Boquete said, he craved to sleep with both eyes closed. To answer to his own name. Instead, over the next four years, he landed in police custody again and again.

In March 1995, acting on a tip about a wanted man, the police came to an apartment where Boquete was staying under the name Hilberto Rodríguez. A gun was found, and he was sentenced to a year. He was assigned to a work crew to clean up around apartments for the elderly across from the Orange Bowl. When he spotted a pay phone in front of the stadium, he could not resist. He called Ulises, the friend who met him when he first returned to Little Havana — now a successful drug dealer — and when Ulises pulled up in a van, Boquete dropped his rake and got in.

He stayed with Ulises and his wife in south Miami. Very early one morning in July 1995, Boquete left for his usual exercise routine in a local park: running and 600 sit-ups, beginning at 6 a.m., before the heat of the day. On the way, he was stopped by a drug-enforcement agent, who asked him if he lived there.

No, he said, “I’m just visiting for a few days from Key West.” The agents searched the house and found two pounds of marijuana. Ulises was away, on a trip to New Orleans with a girlfriend. That left his wife to answer for the pot. Suddenly, Boquete’s status as a fugitive took on a high value. She did not know his real name but knew that he was on the run.

As the officers sorted through his tangle of identities, they decided to process him as Hilberto Rodríguez, the fugitive who had walked away from the Orange Bowl work detail.

“In the police station, the cops say, ‘Let’s go,’ ” Boquete recalled. “I am walking to the door. Then a lady sitting at a computer says: ‘Hold on. Palm Beach has something on him, too.’ ” The Glades prison was in the jurisdiction of Palm Beach County. After 10 1/2 years, his fingerprints were linked to Orlando Boquete.

Sentenced under the Hilberto Rodríguez pseudonym for escaping from the county jail, he was returned to the state prison system as Rodríguez, with “Orlando Bosquete” listed as an alias.

After years of running from his true identity, it would turn out that proving who he really was would not be bad at all for Orlando Boquete. That, however, took another decade.

During the 1990s, many prosecutors in Florida, and elsewhere, fiercely resisted DNA testing for people already in prison. Such tests often poked embarrassing holes in the original investigations. After an innocent man died on death row — the prosecutors opposed testing until the man, Frank Lee Smith, was terminally ill — the State Legislature passed a law that explicitly permitted convicts to seek DNA testing, as long as they asked by Oct. 1, 2003. More than 800 prisoners wrote to the Innocence Project of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, which set up the Florida Innocence Initiative to manage the requests. As the deadline approached, Nina Morrison of the Innocence Project sent forms to Boquete and others, so that they could start the process without an attorney.

With help from another inmate fluent in English, Boquete filed the paperwork. One day in the spring of 2006, Morrison called him: the test results proved he was not the man who had attacked the woman in Key West. He flushed his parole rejection papers down the toilet. Boquete now had a lawyer in Key West, Hal Schuhmacher, representing him, along with the Innocence Project’s Morrison and Barry Scheck (with whom I wrote a book about wrongful convictions in 2000).

Last May 23, Boquete was delivered in shackles to the county courthouse in Marathon for a hearing. At his request, Morrison brought him a white jacket and pants, 30 waist, for his appearance. His family gathered in the courtroom. The moment swelled with uncommon forces: liberation, vindication, resurrection, humility. “I could sit here and talk for as much time as anybody wanted to give me,” the state’s attorney, Mark Kohl, told the judge, “but every minute that I spend talking to you is another minute that an innocent man sits in jail on this charge.”

The judge, Richard Payne, made the same point. “No words spoken by this court today . . . would do justice to the penalty that you have been required to pay for offenses that now we know conclusively that you were not guilty of committing,” he said. “You are hereby ordered to be immediately released from the custody of Florida.”

The state had measured the system against the case of Boquete and recognized its failure. Still, that would not be the end. The federal government, through the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also took its measure of Boquete. While he had been legally admitted to the United States in 1980, he had never completed the application to gain permanent status. So instead of being freed at the moment he was declared innocent, Boquete was taken in handcuffs by immigration agents to a federal detention center.

Yes, Boquete was cleared of the 1982 case. But had he proved himself a menace to society while on the run? Faced with a large question, immigration authorities seemed to use a microscope to answer it. The burglary of the clothing store and a gun found where he had been staying were “a concern with regard to his potential danger to the community,” wrote Michael Rozes, the field office director for immigration enforcement in Miami. “An escape for which he was eventually convicted, regardless of the fact that this conviction has since been overturned, shows your client’s propensity toward absconding.”

Prosecutors in two counties, Miami-Dade and Monroe, weighed in to urge that the immigration officials look beyond a rap sheet that, in Boquete’s case, was singularly unilluminating.

“Public employees exist to serve the public,” Mark Kohl wrote. “If you cannot conclusively determine that he is a dangerous person, I urge you to release him at once so as to not compound the mistakes made 23 years ago.”

Finally, immigration officials released Boquete on Aug. 21, only after he signed papers conceding that he could be deported for his crimes as a fugitive.

That night, he ate two croquetas and drank a batido de mamey at a quiet dinner with family members, his immigration lawyer, John Pratt, and another innocent Florida man, Luis Díaz, who served 26 years. He corrected what he said were misspellings of his name in official records as Bosquette or Bosquete. The next morning, he went for a run on the beach at 6 a.m. Through Hal Schuhmacher, he got a job doing landscape work for two real-estate agents in the Florida Keys, Morgan Hill and Paula Nardone, who gave him a place to stay. Once a month, he makes a four-hour trek by bus and train from Marathon to Miami, to report to immigration.

A few weeks after his release, Boquete agreed to go with me on a trip back to the prison town of Belle Glade, along with his nephew José, now a musician living in Miami. In the prison parking lot, he squinted at the new buildings. He pointed out the perimeter road and the high fence. An officer told us to move.

As we drove along Main Street in Belle Glade, he spotted Avenue L. “Turn here, this is where I saw the Mexicans,” he commanded. We got out. Not surprisingly, no one remembered an ant-eaten hobo who suddenly appeared on a winter day 21 years earlier.

Yet here were the simple landmarks of his story. He darted along Avenue L, running from one spot to the next. The railroad tracks that he followed away from the prison. A square patch of ground of faintly different hue than the surrounding area. “This is where the pay phone was,” he shouted. He found the lot where he stayed with the Mexicans, but the migrants and their shacks were gone. In front of a deserted, sun-bleached wooden building, he said, “I think this might have been where the trucks were.”

Charged with memory, he looked back from age 52 on the 30-year-old who crawled out of canal waters and sugar cane to reclaim his life. The places were faded; the decades were mapped in the gullies and ravines that run through his face.

What if he had not gone out for beer on that June night in 1982, at the very moment the police were looking for the man with the buzz cut?

What would have come of his life?

“Oh,” Boquete said. “Oh. That’s a real question. Too many beautiful things to do, I believe. Exactly what would have happened, I don’t know. I believe I’d have gotten married, I’d have a little business, property, boat. I’m not talking only about material things.

“Maybe I pass away already. I believe, if I am still alive, like I am now, I’d be much better. ”

His words, while true, suddenly ring in his ears as impolitic. “I’ve got people around me,” he said, citing lawyers, benefactors, family.

Then he paused. “In reality, I don’t have nothing,” he said. It has been 21 years since he last saw the spot where the railroad tracks met Avenue L — the crossroads of his life, the point where he passed from captivity to, well, what? Did he know actual freedom on the run?

“Sometimes,” he said, instantly. “Sometimes. When I have a party, when I have made money, when I feel good, when I got a nice place. It doesn’t have to be a nice place — my own place. When I’m cold — when the police don’t look for me.

“I feel free many, many times. Why did I escape from prison? Because I want to be free. I want to feel free. I see the police, I don’t be scared.”

We turn back toward the car. Then we see it: a sign on the wall of the abandoned wood building, paint-dimmed, the words still legible. “Glades Logistics, Truck Broker.” All those years before, he might have jumped one of their trucks and gone wherever it took him. Instead, step by step, he made his own road, finally circling back. Orlando Boquete: walking, not running.

Jim Dwyer, a reporter for The Times, is the author, with Kevin Flynn, of ‘102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers.”

February 13, 2007

Cooking the data

Let's face facts here. The average person does not have an intelligence agency at his disposal to gauge international threats. We can't issue orders and edicts that would compel the Eric Francis Intelligence Service to advise whether Iraq posed a threat to American national security. So we pay taxes that finance the Central Intelligence Agency and other outfits to do the work for us.

What did our money pay for? Let's put it this way. If we compare the performance of the intelligence agencies and experts prior to the Iraq war with the job performance of the local supermarket grocery baggers, lets say that instead of nicely placing your groceries in the plastic bags in your shopping cart, they instead threw the groceries out into the parking lot, eggs and all. Instead of wisely predicting threats to our national security, the stewards of a multimillion intelligence budget cooked the data and pushed for war. A war that's going nowhere, by the way.

Here's the Los Angeles Times over the weekend on the supposed connection between Iraq and al Qaeda:

As the Bush administration began assembling its case for war, analysts across the U.S. intelligence community were disturbed by the report of a secretive Pentagon team that concluded Iraq had significant ties to Al Qaeda.

Analysts from the CIA and other agencies "disagreed with more than 50%" of 26 findings the Pentagon team laid out in a controversial paper, according to testimony Friday from Thomas F. Gimble, acting inspector general of the Pentagon.

The dueling groups sat down at CIA headquarters in late August 2002 to try to work out their differences. But while the CIA agreed to minor modifications in some of its own reports, Gimble said, the Pentagon unit was utterly unbowed.

"They didn't make the changes that were talked about in that August 20th meeting," Gimble said, and instead went on to present their deeply flawed findings to senior officials at the White House.

The work of that special Pentagon unit — which was run by former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith — is one of the lingering symbols of the intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq.

The Bush administration's primary justification for invading Iraq was always its assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But Iraq's supposed ties to Al Qaeda — and therefore its connection to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — were an important secondary argument, and one that resonated with many Americans in the lead-up to the war with Iraq.

But wait, as they say on the Ginsu commercials, there's more! With the Iraq war spiraling out of control into a possible loss on the National scorecard, Iran is standing in the on-deck circle. According to ThinkProgress.org:

In little noted comments on Feb. 2, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley acknowledged that the Iran briefing washeld back because it was “overstated” and not “focused on the facts.”

HADLEY: The reason we put the intelligence briefing on hold was really two reasons. One, we thought we’d better get the [National Intelligence Estimate] out so people could see the full context, which you now can. And secondly, quite frankly, we want to make sure that if we put out intelligence, the intelligence community and MNFI can stand behind it, because we are sensitive to try and put out the facts as accurately as we can. …

Q And now [the briefing has] been pushed back. Can we conclude anything from that other than people looked at the intelligence that was set to offered and said, this is not good enough?

MR. HADLEY: No, I wouldn’t –

Q Does that mean there was a willingness to overstate it?

MR. HADLEY: The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated. And we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts.

Things might be worse than they seem. According to the respected National Journal, it wasn't the White House but the intelligence community which nixed the briefing as overstated.

At least twice in the past month, the White House has delayed a PowerPoint presentation initially prepared by the military to detail evidence of suspected Iranian materiel and financial support for militants in Iraq. The presentation was to have been made at a press conference in Baghdad in the first week of February. Officials have set no new date, but they say it could be any day.

Even as U.S. officials in Baghdad were ready to make the case, administration principals in Washington who were charged with vetting the PowerPoint dossier bowed to pressure from the intelligence community and ordered that it be scrubbed again.

Read more about this here.

February 15, 2007

A non-binding resolution: why bother?

Three years into the Iraq war, Congress is still afraid to take on the President. There is something about war that makes people timid. While the President and his minions are obsessed with the idea of war and all that war brings to the President's image and our sense of national identity, the opposition party wants to raise an objection without kicking out the jams.

A non-binding resolution on troop escalation? If it's non-binding, why bother? Few congressional votes are non-binding. The reason this vote doesn't count is that no one wants to take the blame if things further deteriorate in Iraq. But since American troops are being asked to police a civil war, they should not be there and Congress should say so in the strongest terms.

The Constitution is vague on war powers. This is consistent with how the Constitution was framed in 1787. Back then, the United States hardly maintained a foreign policy, and the rules of war back then were nothing like the modern world. There were no nuclear weapons back then, or NATO, or massive intelligence agencies to advise the President on foreign interventions. The guys who drew up the Constitution had no idea that this document would govern wars 230 years later and that one man would claim the authority to move hundreds of thousands of troops and the world's most deadly weapons without congressional oversight.

I've written previously that one positive aspect of the Iraq war is that enterprising investigative journalists have revealed some disturbing details about the run-up to war as well as its execution. These books include State of Denial (Bob Woodward), State of War (James Risen), Fiasco (Thomas E. Ricks), the One Percent Doctrine (Ronald Suskind) and Hubris (David Corn and Michael Isikoff). I've left out a few, but you get the point. No one reading these books would come away with the impression that Bush and his flunkies had any clear basis for war and how to fight one. If you think the war is bad and you have not read these books, all I can say is that it's worse than you think.

In debating the resolution, some madman in the House of Representatives basically said that war opponents are aiding and abetting the radical Muslims:

When the commentary begins in the Middle East, in no way do I want to comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country and who want to wipe the so-called infidels like myself and many of you from the face of the Earth. In no way do I want to aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country. I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see “In God We Trust” stricken from our money and replaced with “In Muhammad We Trust.”

If I was in Congress, this is what I would say. The following comments are from Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York City, who comes right out and says it: withdraw the troops and cut off finding, something that Congress can do. I want more of this:

The Iraq War is President Bush's war. The President deceived the American people and Members of Congress when he made the case for war. Every reason we were given for invading Iraq was false. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not there. Saddam Hussein working hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda? Not true. And the more information that leaks out, the more apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies.

I ask you: if the President had gone to the American people and said we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, and sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have assented? I think not.

And as the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, should Congress continue to consent? I think not.

We need to say "Enough already!" Enough with the lies, and the deceit and the evasions! Enough with the useless bloodshed. We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in Iraq.

We need to say "Enough already!" Enough with the lies, and the deceit and the evasions! Enough with the useless bloodshed. We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in Iraq. But we must not send more troops there to intervene in a civil war whose outcome we cannot determine. And we should set a swift timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq, and let the contending Iraqi factions know that we will not continue to expend American blood and treasure to referee their civil war. Only if faced with the reality of imminent withdrawal of American troops might the Iraqis strike a deal with each other, and end the civil war.

We know that the Administration has botched the handling of this war; they stood by as Baghdad was looted, they failed to guard ammunition depots, they disbanded the Iraqi army, they crippled the government by firing all the competent civil servants in the name of de-Baathification. And they wasted countless billions of dollars on private contractors and on G-d only-knows-what, with no accounting.

And all this while they continue to deny resources to the real war on the terrorists. They let Osama bin Laden escape. They allowed the Taliban to recover and reconquer. They allow our ports to remain unprotected from uninspected shipping containers. And they let loose nuclear materials remain unaccounted for, waiting to be smuggled to Al Qaeda to be made into nuclear weapons.

And why does the President want more troops in Iraq? To expand our role from fighting Sunni insurgents to fighting the Shiite militias too. Of course, when we attack the Shiite militias, they will respond by shifting their targets from Sunnis to American troops. American casualties will skyrocket, and we will be fighting two insurgencies instead of one.

I believe the President has no real plan other than not to "lose Iraq" on his watch, and to hand over the whole mess to his successor two years from now. He will ignore anything Congress does that doesn't have the force of law.

That is why this resolution must be only the first step.

In the Supplemental Budget we will consider next month, we should exercise the only real power we have - the Congressional power of the purse. We will not cut off the funds, and leave our troops defenseless before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply, but we should limit the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We should provide funds to rebuild the army and to raise our readiness levels, for diplomatic conferences in case there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war, and for economic reconstruction assistance, but above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

We must use the power the people have entrusted to us. The best way to protect our troops is to withdraw them from the middle of a civil war they cannot win, and that is not our fight.

I know that, if we withdraw the troops, the civil war may continue and could get worse. But this is probably inevitable, no matter how long our troops remain. And if the Iraqis must fight a civil war, I would rather they fight it without 20,000 more Americans dying.

Yes, the blindness of the Administration is largely to blame for starting the civil war in Iraq, but we cannot end it. Only the Iraqis can settle their civil war. We can only make it worse, and waste our blood and treasure pointlessly.

So let us pass this resolution, and then let us lead this country out of the morass in Iraq, so that we can devote our resources to protecting ourselves from the terrorists and to improving the lives of our people.


February 18, 2007

Fear and loathing in Utah

Fear and loathing is no way to decide the rights of children and their parents. In Utah, two woman raised a child together as lesbians. Then one of the woman found a man and decided that her former lover should not visit the child anymore, even though she knew the baby from birth and was her de facto mother.

The general rule governing custody and other matters relating to children is: what is in the best interests of the child? That legal standard requires the courts to take a hard look at the case and push aside the parents' emotions. If the proposed arrangement is not in the child's best interests, then the courts will not allow it.

Wouldn't it be in the child's interests to be visited by one of the women who raised her, even if she is not the biological mother? The "best interests of the child" standard operates in New York. Maybe not in Utah, where the court instead applied a legalistic analysis about the rights of the natural parent and the court's reluctance to "legislate from the bench" and extend parental rights to the biological mother's former lover who helped raise the child. The court ruling treated the losing parent as if she were nothing more than the biological mother's good friend. But she was more than a good friend, at least in the context of the child's life.

Gays and lesbians are more accepted in today's society than ever before. But the courts are not catching up. I have seen courts rule again and again that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not extend to same-sex marriages, even though there is no compelling reason to outlaw them. Fear and prejudice are not compelling reasons. "We never did this kind of thing before" is not compelling. If marriage is a fundamental constitutional right under the Constitution, same-sex unions cannot be restricted, at least in my view. But the courts have jumped through hoops in refusing to pull the trigger in this regard, embarassing themselves with pedestrian legal analysis in striking down these claims.

Maybe the squeamish cannot handle the idea of gay men and lesbians getting married, because they can't deal with what goes on inside the bedroom. But to extend that prejudice to the visitation battles between former gay and lesbian lovers is even more inexplicable. It brings prejudice to a whole new level.

Here's the article from a Utah newspaper:

Utah top court rules against granting same-sex parental rights

By Geoffrey Fattah
Deseret Morning News
February 17, 2007

The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that common law alone cannot grant a domestic partner who is not the biological parent of a child the right to visit that child, even if that partner acted as a parent while in the relationship.

The decision is being hailed by conservative groups and supporters of strong parental rights, while others have described it as a "deep and severe loss" for nontraditional families.

Friday's ruling comes more than 18 months after oral arguments were heard in this one-of-a-kind case for Utah. The former same-sex partner of a biological mother has fought for the right to visit the little girl the couple had planned to rear together. The women separated when the girl was 2 years old.

A district court judge initially ruled that Keri Lynne Jones had a right to visitation through a common-law concept known as "in loco parentis" which is Latin for "in the place of a parent." The lower court found it was in the girl's best interest to continue to have contact with Jones, despite the protest of mother and former partner, Cheryl Pike Barlow.

Barlow, a born-again evangelical Christian who claims she is no longer a lesbian, argued that as a fit biological parent, she had a right to decide those to whom her child is exposed. Barlow argued to the Utah Supreme Court that she did not want her daughter exposed to the same-sex lifestyle.

In November 2000, Barlow and Jones decided to enter into a civil union in Vermont and to raise children together. Barlow conceived a child through artificial insemination and, in October 2001, gave birth to a baby girl. The birth certificate listed the child's surname as "Jones Barlow" and, for the first two years of the girl's life, both women cared for her. In May 2002, both women obtained a court order designating both of them as co-guardians of the child.

When their relationship ended in October 2003, however, Barlow petitioned the court again to have Jones removed as co-guardian, which the court granted.

Jones then brought suit against Barlow, seeking court-ordered visitation of the child. A district judge ruled that because the couple had planned to raise the child together and Jones had been a parental figure in the girl's life, she had standing to seek visitation and the court ordered such.

. . .

In a lengthy dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Christine Durham disagreed with her colleagues and noted that for all intents and purposes, Jones should be considered a family member, even though Utah law lacks a specific definition for her. Durham compared Utah's law with that of Vermont, where the couple obtained a civil union, which recognizes Jones as "an immediate family member."

Durham points out that the Utah Legislature has yet to address such relationships, and that only leads to harming children caught in the middle without the benefit of a clear law.

"A child's rights and best interests do not change depending on whether his or her parental figures are recognized as parents under the law or whether they are simply parents in fact," Durham wrote.

February 20, 2007

Throwing away the key at Gitmo

When George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act last fall, constitutional scholars noted that the new law prevents detainees from challenging their confinement at Guantanamo Bay and that this was one of the rare moments in U.S. history that Habeas Corpus was suspended. Habeas Corpus is a latin term that summarizes the procedure by which prisoners can challenge their confinement. If the confinement is illegal, say they got the wrong guy or you received an unfair trial, a judge can grant your Habeas petition. Without the right of Habeas Corpus, you have no freedom because you can be locked up for no reason and there will be no recourse.

Today's Associated Press article about a court ruling in Washington D.C. shows the impact of the Military Commissions Act. The court ruled that Gitmo prisoners can forget about challenging their confinements. The problem with this is that our detention centers at Gitmo and elsewhere have swept up people who were not terrorists and who shouldn't be there. More on that issue here. They have no rights at all.

Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti-terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

. . .

The Military Commissions Act was crafted in response to that decision and the president hailed it as a necessary tool for bringing terror suspects to justice.

. . .

But the most criticized provision of the law was the one stripping U.S. courts of the authority to hear arguments from detainees who said they were being held illegally.

. . .

U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department said foreign enemy combatants are not protected by the Constitution.

By sheer coincidence, last night's talk show on Fox News featured a so-called intellectual who said that the teacher's unions in this country are more dangerous than al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11.

Conservatives hate the teacher's unions because unions represent the only bulwark against an oppressive employer, and conservatives pretend that these unions care more about teacher salaries than classroom learning. Every teacher that I know cares about the students. And last I checked, the teachers union did not fly airplanes into the World Trade Center. Fox News invites guest analysts who say the teachers are worse than mass killers. So what does this mean? Should the teacher's union be sent to Gitmo? Put it this way: if they are rounded up for no reason and flown to Gitmo, they have no rights at all.

February 23, 2007

Is anyone surprised by this?

Denial is a river in Africa. It's also at the White House, where Dick Cheney is holding onto his toys so heartily that when you try to pull the teddy bear out of his hands you end up dragging him down the hallway like a dog who won't let go of his favorite blanket.

Cheney was interviewed by ABC News about global warming. The vice president is a guy who had made a lot of money in his career and is not about to spoil the fun for anyone else. If there's money to be made, then there's money to be made. Environmental controls hurt profits, and we can't have that.

For this reason, he cannot come to grips with the most pressing problem facing planet Earth. A guy who literally made up scare stories about Iraq's supposed threat to world peace cannot accept documented claims that human activity is causing global warming. A guy who said that bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein were good friends has not read the latest scientific report on global warming. So we get interviews like this:

JONATHAN KARL: Where is the science on this? Is global warming a fact? And is it human activity that is causing global warming?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Those are the two key questions. I think there’s an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we’re in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that’s part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.

No consensus on the cause of global warming? Dick, put away your comic books and do some real reading. As Associated Press recently reported:

The world's top climate scientists said on Friday global warming was man-made, spurring calls for urgent government action to prevent severe and irreversible damage from rising temperatures.

The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heatwaves, rains and a slow gain in sea levels that could last for more than 1,000 years.

The scientists said it was "very likely" -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.

That is a toughening from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) last report in 2001, which judged a link as "likely," or 66 percent probable.

Let's face it folks, we were duped. Well, at least some of us were. I didn't vote for Bush-Cheney, but a lot of people did. They thought these guys could at least look at a stapler and say it was a stapler. Instead, Cheney looks at a stapler and says it's a fish tank.

February 26, 2007

Iran is next

Iran is next. After manhandling the war in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, Team Bush is now revving up for war in Iran. The war lovers are setting us up for another war when we can't finish the first two. It's like a kid who wants dessert before finishing his veggies.

Some people love the idea of war. The President's approval ratings skyrocket whenever an international crisis arises, and he gets a honeymoon period once the war starts. If the war fails . . . well, we'll worry about that later.

To start a war, you have to scare the American people into thinking that war is the only option. That's how the Iraq war started. That the scare tactics were all false did not matter at the time. Everyone hated Saddam Hussein anyway, and thh six-month build-up to war in late 2002 early 2003 was like the run up to the Super Bowl. The anticipation and excitement was so fierce it was like having seven consecutive Christmas Eve's before the big day finally came around.

I just finished reading another book about the Bush administration's propaganda war against the American people in the run-up to war in Iraq. This time it was Hubris, by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. These books are starting to sound the same after a while. Almost none of the intelligence that supposedly supported war in Iraq was true. The question for some people is whether Bush lied to the American people. The better question is whether his administration did. There is a difference in these distinctions. Bush publicly said what his advisors told him to say. His advisors cherry picked the intelligence to support war, even though sourcing methods were questionable and foreign governments who supplied some of this information distanced themselves from it. If you want war badly enough, you'll find a way to start one. Even assuming that Bush was a mouthpiece for the warmongers in his administration, we're talking about one corrupt administration. Bush was not intelligent enough to ask the right questions, and that's the scandal. When nearly every justification for war is false, you can assume that the proponents of war knew it at the time. There is no such thing as being extremely negligent. At some point, extreme negligence turns into recklessness, and you can also assume that mistakes like this were intentional.

The general view is that Bush is losing the war on terror. al-Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan because we've been farting around in Iraq, which is a lost cause and making us less safe.

So if the facts supporting the Iraq war were smoke and mirrors, why should we believe the Bush administration's next feature film, War in Iran? Seymour Hersh, one of our greatest investigative reporters, says that Iran war plans are afoot.

According to Reuters:

Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue.

The panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon consultant, who were not identified.

The consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said that U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives, according to the article.

The problem with the propaganda rush for a war with Iran is that, as usual, the intelligence may be faulty. According to the London Guardian last week:

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today. The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran and raises the possibility that the US could resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites.

At the heart of the debate are accusations - spearheaded by the US - that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.

However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations said.

"They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities.

"Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test."

Is there any good news here? The only good news that I can find is that American generals will quit if Bush goes to war in Iran. According to the London Times, "Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack."

About February 2007

This page contains all entries posted to PsychSound by Steve Bergstein in February 2007. They are listed from oldest to newest.

January 2007 is the previous archive.

March 2007 is the next archive.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.


Psychsound by Steve Bergstein is published by Planet Waves, Inc.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.32
Copyright © 2006 by Planet Waves, Inc. Other copyrights may apply.   Back to Planet Waves