Barr Has Made a Total Mess of the Mueller Report, and Undermined DOJ

Many felt that William Barr should never have been confirmed as Attorney General given his unseemly effort to audition for the position by releasing an unsolicited opinion that basically trashed the basis for the Mueller report and made the argument that the office of the president was above the law - a concept that would have shocked the Founding Fathers. Through his handling of the release of the Mueller report, Barr has confirmed the worse fears of his critics and, worse yet, has further damaged the reputation and public perception of the U.S. Department of Justice. What is puzzling to many is why Barr - who was retired and had a decent reputation - has chosen a course that will likely sully him in the view of history not to mention further undermine the public trust in governmental institutions. Is the public political fellatio of Donald Trump worth that? Barr's window of opportunity to save his own reputation and that of the Justice Department is closing rapidly and time will tell if he will opt throw away and shred of honor and principle like so many Republicans have done to date.  A piece in Politico looks at the damage Barr is doing. Here are highlights:

Ever since would-be First Gentleman Bill Clinton stepped onto Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s plane in June 2016, the Justice Department has found itself in the worst position possible for a nonpolitical law enforcement agency — that of leading actor in the nation’s most hotly contested political dramas.

William Barr’s confirmation as Sessions’ successor was supposed to provide a reset to those turbulent times. A respected former attorney general who didn’t need the job, he promised that his extensive experience and end-of-career status would allow him to make decisions regardless of what a president notoriously hostile to the Justice Department’s normal practices wanted.

Instead, Barr’s handling of the conclusion of the 22-month long investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election has thrust a new cloud over the Justice Department and his leadership, one that has grown darker with the reports that some members of the special counsel’s team believe he has mischaracterized their findings and needlessly inserted himself into the process to make his own determination as to whether the president obstructed justice.

Barr is now in open warfare with the special counsel’s office, with his spokesperson releasing a statement Thursday that seemed to push back on the contention, leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post, that he could have released a summary written by the special counsel’s office rather than his own version of events.

Barr has also moved the goal posts on what categories of information would be redacted from the report, adding two new ones to the list he announced on March 24, while refusing so far to ask a court for permission to release grand jury material, as the Justice Department did at the conclusion of two previous investigations into presidential misconduct.

The attorney general’s actions raise suspicions about whether he is acting primarily to benefit [Trump] the president because they don’t make sense when viewed through any other lens. Barr is neither inexperienced nor naive, yet when deciding among the several options available to him when he received Mueller’s report, he chose the one course of action that would raise questions about his own integrity and plunge the Justice Department into political controversy.

Barr simply could have told Congress that he had received the report and would make a version available when he had completed his review and made appropriate redactions. He could have released Mueller’s principal findings, as he initially said he would do, without adding his own conclusion on obstruction of justice. Or he could have released one of the multiple summaries prepared by Mueller’s team while review of the full report continued.

Barr instead chose the one path that could call his behavior into question, while negating the entire reason for appointing a special counsel in the first place: to ensure that the taint of politics is removed from the Justice Department’s decision-making. That choice would be odd for any attorney general. It makes even less sense for one whose impartiality was questioned from the outset, given that he was chosen for the job after he wrote an unsolicited memo questioning some of the very foundations of the special counsel’s investigation.

Barr still has a chance to lift the cloud his actions have placed over his leadership, but to do so, he will have to reverse course quickly. . . . he should follow the precedent the department set in both the Starr investigation and the 2016 Clinton email investigation and provide underlying investigative materials to lawmakers.

Mueller is one of the most talented and respected prosecutors of his generation, and his integrity will accrue to Barr’s benefit, if only Barr will let it. The sniping the Justice Department has directed toward the special counsel’s office in the press over the past two weeks, both on the record and through leaks to reporters, is not just unseemly — it also hurts the entire department and its ability to do its job.

If the Justice Department has any hope of restoring the reputation that has been tarnished — sometimes fairly, sometimes not — through the past three years of political combat, it will be by leaning on Mueller’s hard-earned reputation and letting his work speak for itself. Barr should get out of the way and let that happen. Otherwise, he will deserve all the criticism he gets, and both he and the Justice Department will suffer for it.

Mueller’s Team: Their Findings More Damaging for Trump Than Barr Indicated

Is Barr covering up for Trump?

When Attorney General William Barr issued his 3 and a half page letter summarizing the Mueller report, the reaction of many - including yours truly - was that Barr was trying to protect Donald Trump and sanitize a report that likely contained many disturbing findings on the Trump campaigns contacts with Russian operatives and Der Trumpenführer's efforts to sabotage any meaningful investigation of Trump and his campaign.  Such distrust of Barr hearkens back to his unsolicited memo  to the Department of Justice on the validity of the Mueller investigation ion the issue of obstruction of justice.  Here are reminders from CNN about the Barr's memo:

Nearly a year before his letter Sunday telling lawmakers he did not believe President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice, Attorney General William Barr authored a memo saying he thought the obstruction investigation was "fatally misconceived."

Barr, then a private citizen and former attorney general to President George H. W. Bush, issued the memo to senior Justice Department officials in June 2018.  In his memo, Barr added that Trump asking then-FBI Director James Comey to let go of the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn and later firing Comey was within his powers as head of the executive branch.

In his recent letter, Barr - not surprisingly - found that no obstruction of justice had occurred. Recently, two pundits aptly described Barr's unsolicited memo as the equivalent of a prostitute hiking her skirt up to her waist to show her "wares" as Barr seemingly sought to catch Trump's attention and secure the AG nomination for himself.  Now, members of Mueller's investigative team have alleged that Barr had understated the damaging findings of the Mueller report.  Here are highlights from the New York Times:

Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.

The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation.

Barr was also wary of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with Mr. Barr’s thinking.

[T]he report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation. It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public. It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel. . . . . the special counsel’s investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry, according to the two government officials.

A debate over how the special counsel’s conclusions are represented has played out in public as well in recent weeks, with Democrats in Congress accusing Mr. Barr of intervening to color the outcome of the investigation in the president’s favor.

Barr said that Mr. Mueller found no conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia’s 2016 election interference. While Mr. Mueller made no decision on his other main question, whether the president illegally obstructed the inquiry, he explicitly stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

Mr. Barr’s promises of transparency have done little to appease Democrats who control the House. The House Judiciary Committee voted on Wednesday to let its chairman use a subpoena to try to compel Mr. Barr to hand over a full copy of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to Congress. The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has not said when he will use the subpoena, but made clear on Wednesday that he did not trust Mr. Barr’s characterization of what Mr. Mueller’s team found.

I remain adamant that the full report - redacted only to protect confidential sources and true national security issues - be publicly released ASAP.  I and other Americans do not need Mr. Barr telling us what a report says that we are perfectly capable of reading for ourselves.

Devin Nunes Is Dangerous

Nunes - Trump co-conspirator?

The efforts by House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes to protect Der Trumpenführer and to keep the American public from learning the truth about Trump's Russia ties have become so extreme that not only is it time for the appointment of a special prosecutor, but it's time that Nunes himself be investigated.  Remember, Nunes was on Trump's transition team and may either have known of or been involved in improper behavior.  Having him chair the committee investigating possible wrongdoing - and treason - is putting the fox in charge of the hen house.  A column in the New York Times looks at the dangerous situation.  Here are excerpts:

Representative Devin Nunes obviously fancies himself Jason Bourne. To sneak onto the White House grounds for that rendezvous with an unnamed source last week, he switched cars and ditched aides, vanishing into the night.

But Senator Lindsey Graham looks at him and sees a different character. Graham said on the “Today” show on Tuesday that Nunes was bumbling his way though something of an “Inspector Clouseau investigation,” a reference to the fantastically inept protagonist of the “Pink Panther” comedies.

I salute Graham’s movie vocabulary. I quibble with his metaphor. While Clouseau was a benign fool, there’s nothing benign about Nunes’s foolishness.

As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes, a California Republican, is a principal sleuth in the paramount inquiry into whether members of the Trump campaign were in cahoots with Russia, and from all appearances, he either doesn’t want to know the answer or has determined it already — in President Trump’s favor.

Democrats are rightly calling on him to recuse himself. They’ve been joined in their alarm by Graham, a South Carolina Republican, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. As Graham summoned the specter of Clouseau, McCain said on “CBS This Morning” that “something’s got to change.”

But Nunes was defiant when asked by reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday whether he would continue to guide that effort, saying, “Why would I not?”  Oh, many reasons.

Let’s start here: The Intelligence Committee isn’t supposed to be a partisan arm of the majority party (though it has behaved that way in the past). And any collusion with the White House is a betrayal of its special oversight role.

When James Comey, the F.B.I. director, appeared before Nunes’s committee to confirm his own agency’s investigation into Trump-Russia ties, Nunes changed the subject to the media’s acquisition of classified information, going on about leaks, leaks, leaks. He sounded more like a plumber than a politician.

And when Nunes gathered reporters around him two days later, it was to say that he’d seen secret documents suggesting that people around Trump may indeed have been subject to surveillance by our government.

This week we learned that Nunes got that information during that rendezvous, details of which he has not provided to his fellow committee members, just as he failed to share the information itself with Democrats on the committee before he went public with it.

All of this is irregular enough to peg him as a puppet of the Trump administration or a complete boob. Either way, he has surrendered his investigation’s integrity — and his own.

Spicer is right that we’re obsessed with Russia, wrong that it’s as random as condiments. We’re obsessed because every signal from the administration and its allies is that they don’t want us looking any further or any closer, and Nunes’s Bourne identity is the most glaring signal of all.

If Trump and his associates have nothing to hide, why all the cloak and dagger? And why such clumsiness?

University Papaer Calls on University to Address Mark Regnerus' Ethical Lapses

Click image to enlarge - Photo Credit: Alex Dolan | Daily Texan Staff

Despite being located in a state where Republicans seem to celebrate the embrace of ignorance and condone shameless lying to further their racist, homophobic, reverse Robin Hood, agenda, the University of Texas at Austin is over all a top notch university.  Now, the student newspaper is calling on the University administration to deal with the ethical lapses and fabricated lies of Mark Regnerus who has pocketed money from far right anti-gay groups, generated false studies, and been slammed by federal judges.  Even his own department has distanced itself from his bogus claims and studies.  A piece in the Daily Texan suggests that students think that Regnerus needs to go and are questioning why Regnerus hasn't been disciplined or fired.  One obvious question is that of who is protecting him?  Here are article highlights:

As another gay marriage case goes before the Supreme Court, Mark Regnerus has once again been spared further university scrutiny for his New Family Structures Study.

Since 2012, the associate sociology professor has courted controversy for publishing observed differences between the children of parents who had a same-sex relationship and children living with both biological parents that suggested that the latter do better than the former in life. The criticisms have focused mainly on flaws in the study’s methodology, which established no causal link between the parents’ sexuality and the observed outcomes. Ethical concerns also include Regnerus’ alleged misuse of his findings in court and failure to stop misuse and misrepresentation of his findings by conservative groups such as Focus on the Family and the Heritage Foundation.

In early March, College of Liberal Arts Dean Randy Diehl wrote a letter, obtained by the Texan through an open records request, to Robert Crosnoe, chair of the sociology department. In the letter, it is revealed that despite objections from key figures in the college, no action will be taken on the ethical concerns raised about the NFSS, and Regnerus’ post-tenure, or six-year performance, review rating will remain “exceeds expectations.”

The twists and turns this story has taken are sometimes convoluted, but the potted history, at least as it pertains to this letter, is thus:

When Regnerus’ post-tenure review committee met in 2013-2014, it determined that his performance “exceeded expectations” based on his publication record. However, then-department chair Christine Williams disagreed, citing the controversy surrounding the methodology and conclusions of the NFSS.

[D]eferred to Robert Peterson, associate vice president for research, and his supervisor, Juan Sanchez, vice president for research. They did not believe that the charges leveled met the standards of scientific misconduct and declined to investigate.

The post-tenure review committee met again in January of this year and was tasked by Diehl with considering only methodological problems. Based on this charge, the committee found the following, as summarized and endorsed by Diehl: “Valid methodological concerns have been raised. … A key one is this: Because the design of the study ensured that the parental same-sex relationship variable was confounded with the family structure stability variable, it is not possible to conclude that the different life outcomes between the two groups were caused by the parental relationship variable.” Diehl, citing this finding and Regnerus’ original caution that the article did not deal with same-sex marriage legal rights, agreed that “no policy implications about same-sex parenting should be drawn from the study.” But the fact is Regnerus did use those findings in court.

[W]e are disappointed that he didn’t act on the serious ethical dilemmas caused by Regnerus’ reckless misuse of his study, not only because they don’t even give Regnerus a slap on the wrist, but also because his assertion that post-tenure review committees should not concern themselves with ethical issues sets a dangerous precedent and is also inconsistent with the University’s Comprehensive Periodic Review Guidelines. Section 10 of the guidelines states that “incompetence, neglect of duty, or other good cause” may be used to to initiate “appropriate disciplinary action.”

We don’t fault Diehl for having the impulse to keep the peace, but it should have been outweighed by the blinding  scientific errors and ethical lapses demonstrated by Regnerus.

Regnerus’ post-tenure review decision is final. However, for years now, Regnerus has turned a blind eye, and contributed directly, to the perversion of his findings by right-leaning activists. Diehl shouldn’t repeat his mistake. Instead of sitting idly by, he should take real action and more forcefully condemn not just the methodological, but also the ethical, shortcomings of Regnerus’ work.

Given the extreme anti-gay animus of the Republican controlled Texas legislature, one cannot help but wonder whether the university is afraid to fire Regnerus because of the political - and funding backlash - that might go with it.  Meanwhile, the University's reputation continues to be sullied by Regnerus' continued presence on the faculty.  Should Regnerus and/or his study be slammed in the coming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, the damage will only be magnified.  Regnerus needs to be fired and relegated to working some place like Liberty University or Regent University where no sane, thinking person takes the institution seriously.

Saudi Arabia and the Missing Pages of the 9/11 Report

As noted recently, the USA continues to treat Saudi Arabia as a key ally even though that nation continues to violate international law on human rights abuses and to foster Islamic extremism.  Now, in the wake of events in Paris last week, some want the pages redacted from the 9/11 report to be released.  What will they show?  Mainly that the USA's supposed ally provided most of the funding for the 9/11 attackers. It's past time that America stop giving a pass to and supporting regimes that in so many ways work against America's - and western modernity - interests.  Here are excerpts from a piece in The Daily Beast:

A story that might otherwise have slipped away in a morass of conspiracy theories gained new life Wednesday when former Sen. Bob Graham headlined a press conference on Capitol Hill to press for the release of 28 pages redacted from a Senate report on the 9/11 attacks. And according to Graham, the lead author of the report, the pages “point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as the principal financier” of the 9/11 hijackers.

“This may seem stale to some but it’s as current as the headlines we see today,” Graham said, referring to the terrorist attack on a satirical newspaper in Paris. The pages are being kept under wraps out of concern their disclosure would hurt U.S. national security. But as chairman of the Senate Select Committee that issued the report in 2002, Graham argues the opposite is true, and that the real “threat to national security is non-disclosure.”

Graham said the redacted pages characterize the support network that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, and if that network goes unchallenged, it will only flourish. He said that keeping the pages classified is part of “a general pattern of coverup” that for 12 years has kept the American people in the dark. It is “highly improbable” the 19 hijackers acted alone, he said, yet the U.S. government’s position is “to protect the government most responsible for that network of support.” 

The Saudis know what they did, Graham continued, and the U.S. knows what they did, and when the U.S. government takes a position of passivity, or actively shuts down inquiry, that sends a message to the Saudis. “They have continued, maybe accelerated their support for the most extreme form of Islam,” he said, arguing that both al Qaeda and ISIS are “a creation of Saudi Arabia.”

Standing with Graham were Republican Rep. Walter Jones and Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch, co-sponsors of House Resolution 428, which says declassification of the 28 pages is necessary to provide the American public with the full truth surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The two lawmakers echoed Graham’s assertion that national security would not be harmed . . . . 

The relatively few who have read the pages come away with varying levels of shock and surprise. Lynch said he was so blown away that the information was being kept from the public that he told the two room monitors he would be filing legislation. HR 428 had 27 co-sponsors in the last Congress.

Quinn told The Daily Beast, “It’s rather bizarre that we would go to these great lengths to air this heretofore confidential information about how we reacted to 9/11, and at the same time we keep secret information about protecting those who helped launch the attack.”  But now the wheels of justice are finally moving. The Senate passed by voice vote in the last Congress JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act). Co-sponsored by Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the bill would strip diplomatic immunity from nation states in cases of terrorism, and open the door to financial compensation for the 9/11 families from the Saudi government.

It all signals that the decades-long bipartisan policy of always keeping the Saudis happy, and never rocking the boat, may be coming to an end. In Sarasota, Florida, a federal judge is reviewing 80,000 pages of documents that relate to a prominent Saudi family and its extensive contacts with three of the hijackers when they attended flight school in Sarasota.

The family abruptly left the U.S. for Saudi Arabia a few days before the attacks, leaving dinner on the table and a brand new car in the driveway “as though they’d been tipped something was going to happen, and they’d better not be in the country,” said Graham. One member of the family is described as a high-level adviser to the Saudi royal family.

All but three Senate Democrats, joined by one Republican and one independent, signed a letter calling on President Bush to declassify the 28-page section detailing the role of foreign governments in bankrolling the 9/11 attackers.

Oh, and let's not forget how Bush and Cheney allowed a plane full of Saudis to leave the country even as all other flights were grounded. 

Australian Inquiry into Child Sex abuse Slams Catholic Church

Pope Francis may be trying to possibly change the tone of the Catholic Church's message, but in one area he has failed to make needed changes and to remove high members of the hierarchy from office: the world wide sex abuse scandal.  Active participants in the cover up remain "princes of the church" and continue to mouth disingenuous statements of feigned piety.  In reality, the ought to be behind bars or at a minimum, thrown from office in disgrace.  The Australian investigation into child sex abuse in that nation not surprisingly slams the Catholic Church and its failure to even remotely protect children and youths.  Here are highlights from The Age on the investigation's findings:

The state government’s eagerly awaited report on clergy child sex abuse recommends sweeping changes to laws behind which the Catholic Church has sheltered, and accused its leaders of  trivialising the problem as a ‘‘short-term embarrassment’’.

Launching the report in State Parliament, inquiry chairwoman Georgie Crozier spoke of ‘‘a betrayal beyond comprehension’’ and children suffering ‘‘unimaginable harm’’.

The report into how the churches handled clergy sexual abuse wants to establish a new crime for people in authority knowingly to put a child a risk, and to make it a crime not to report suspected child abuse or to leave a child at risk. The recommendation does not extend to what priests hear in the confessional.

Grooming a child or parents should be a crime, child abuse should be excluded from the statute of limitations, and the present church systems of dealing with victims in-house should be replaced by an independent government-monitored authority, suggests the report, Betrayal of Trust.

Committee member Andrea Coote said the Catholic Church had minimised and trivialised the problem, kept the community in ignorance, and ensured that perpetrators were not held accountable, so that children continued to be abused.

‘‘With the notable exception of Father Kevin Dillon [the Geelong priest who gave evidence], we found that today’s church leaders view the current question of abuse of children as a ‘short-term embarrassment’ which should be handled as quickly as possible to cause the least damage to the church’s standing. They do not see the problems as raising questions about the church’s own culture,’’ she said.

The betrayal of trust at a number of levels of the church hierarchy was in such contrast to the religion’s stated values that many Catholics found the betrayal almost impossible to acknowledge, Ms Coote said.

Besides recommending new criminal laws, the report suggests way to make it easier for victims to seek justice. These include ensuring organisations are held accountable and vicariously liable, and that any organisation receiving government funding or tax exemptions are incorporated and insured. This would eliminate the so-called Ellis defence, by which the church successfully argued it was not an entity that could be sued.

“The leaders of the Catholic Church who were involved some of these actions ought to absolutely hang their heads in shame, and that’s the least of what they should do.’’

 

Other news outlets in Australia also have coverage.   Sex abuse by clergy is not limited to the Catholic Church, but in no other denomination has there been such a coordinated world wide cover up.   In part, I believe this is due to the Church's celibacy requirement and the Church's absolute obsession with all things sexual.   As for those in the pews - the sheeple - they need to pull their heads out of the sand (or perhaps their asses) and face the truth about the utter moral bankruptcy of most of the Church hierarchy.  As for Pope Francis, he needs to start removing clerics from office on a wide scale.

Drunk Anti-Gay Archbishop Had Male College Student In Car at Arrest

Things seem to be getting a bit curious about what exactly was really going in the early morning hours when new appointed Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone (pictured at right) - called by some the "father of Proposition 8" was arrested for DUI in San Diego.  Cordileone had said that he had been at dinner with friends and was driving his elderly mother home before he was to head home himself.  As Fr. Geoff Fallows (who got booted from his parish for refusing to support Prop 8) has picked up, that may not be the entire story: Cordileone had a young male in the car as well -something not mentioned if Cordileone's story line.  Obviously, a number of questions become relevant, including why Cordileone not mention this other passenger.  Here are some details from Fr. Geoff's blog:

Listen very carefully to the announcer of a local San Diego news station:

“According to police, 56 year old bishop Salvatore Cordileone was driving along the edge of SDSU when he entered a sobriety checkpoint he appeared drunk and was arrested shortly after midnight. He was in the car with his elderly mother and a foreign exchange student, a young male adult.”

If San Francisco Archbishop-elect Cordileone were just the simple priest that he claimed to be to at his arrest, his superior would have demanded explanations.

What were you doing driving drunk?

What was a college student doing in your passenger seat at that time of night?

After you dropped off your mother, where did you intend to go, and what were you going to do when you arrived?

Have you ever spent time with, or socialized, with this young man prior to your arrest? If so in what context and what is the nature of your relationship?

The matter would be brought to the attention of the bishop, and it would most probably affect his career and, of course, it would be handled discreetly.

The fact that Cordileone’s mother was present in the car with Cordileone and the young student would not clear the concerns or suspicions from the mind of a superior. Consider the statements of the police:

“Cordileone's mother, who was a passenger, was allowed to drive the mid-size black car home following her son's arrest after officers made sure she had not been drinking and had a valid license, McCullough [the arresting police officer] said.”

and:

"He was a driver that was obviously impaired,” Officer Mark McCullough also stated.

These two statements from police clearly indicate that Cordileone’s mother was sober and capable of driving the car that night. The second statement by officer McCullogugh that “he [Cordileone] was…obviously impaired” raises some serious questions about both the judgment and the laxity of Cordileone’s mother, with respect to her son. She can’t tell, or is unwilling to protest, that he is obviously drunk and poses a threat to human life behind the wheel of an automobile. How objective and outspoken would she be about a possible inappropriate relationship with a young student?

A superior/pastor/bishop would ask all of these questions of Salvatore Cordileone and so, it surprises me that the press does not. Then again, the Catholic hierarchy has much experience in managing the press. This is not a story they want pursued, it would be highly inconvenient in an election year. Especially on the same week that the head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), New York Archbishop cardinal Dolan blesses the Republican National Convention and Mitt Romney’s bid to replace Obama as President. If Romney wins, the USCCB’s social conservativism will become national policy and this increases both USCCB [Vatican] power and prestige. 

Cordileone is not a simple priest. He is:  “Known as "the architect of Proposition 8," the 56-year-old played a pivotal role in convincing many Catholic organizations in California to help bankroll the 2008 campaign to overturn the state's same-sex marriage law. With his help, Prop 8 supporters raised some $1.5 million, which went a long way toward helping get the measure passed.”

It all may be an innocent situation.  However, the fact that Cordileone apparently deliberately never mentioned the young man raises the old question of "if you have nothing to hide, then why hide something."  People deserve an answer to the questions Fr. Geoff raises and I hope the full story comes out.  Obviously, it would be deliciously ironic if Cordileone is exposed as a closet case who got caught. It would be in keeping with the pattern of loudest homophobes actually being gay themselves. :) 

The Kill Team - More Ugly Truth About the Murder of Afghan Civilians

I've written before about the "murder for sport" scandal coming out of Afghanistan that's been unfolding for some time now - the first coverage was sadly in the foreign press. The disgusting details continue to unfold as well as photos of murdered civilians sometimes staged in manners to cover up the real truth of what happened. It's frightening to see such an open display of a mindset where other humans are treated as if they were less than animals. Yet, it's a mindset that gets support - directly and indirectly - daily from elements in the far right GOP and of course conservative Christian quarters where the constant message is that some are "other" and therefore less than human. Rolling Stone in a lengthy article looks at more of the sick details of these atrocities. Photos can be found here. Here are article highlights (WARNING: some photos and details are extremely upsetting):
*
Early last year, after six hard months soldiering in Afghanistan, a group of American infantrymen reached a momentous decision: It was finally time to kill a haji.
*
Among the men of Bravo Company, the notion of killing an Afghan civilian had been the subject of countless conversations, during lunchtime chats and late-night bull sessions. For weeks, they had weighed the ethics of bagging "savages" and debated the probability of getting caught. Some of them agonized over the idea; others were gung-ho from the start. But not long after the New Year, as winter descended on the arid plains of Kandahar Province, they agreed to stop talking and actually pull the trigger.
*
The two soldiers, Cpl. Jeremy Morlock and Pfc. Andrew Holmes, saw a young farmer who was working by himself among the spiky shoots. Off in the distance, a few other soldiers stood sentry. But the farmer was the only Afghan in sight. With no one around to witness, the timing was right. And just like that, they picked him for execution.
*
He was a smooth-faced kid, about 15 years old. Not much younger than they were: Morlock was 21, Holmes was 19. His name, they would later learn, was Gul Mudin, a common name in Afghanistan. He was wearing a little cap and a Western-style green jacket. He held nothing in his hand that could be interpreted as a weapon, not even a shovel. The expression on his face was welcoming. "He was not a threat," Morlock later confessed.
*
The soldiers knelt down behind a mud-brick wall. Then Morlock tossed a grenade toward Mudin, using the wall as cover. As the grenade exploded, he and Holmes opened fire, shooting the boy repeatedly at close range with an M4 carbine and a machine gun. Mudin buckled, went down face first onto the ground. His cap toppled off. A pool of blood congealed by his head.
*
[T]he top officer on the scene, Capt. Patrick Mitchell, thought there was something strange about Morlock's story. "I just thought it was weird that someone would come up and throw a grenade at us," Mitchell later told investigators. But Mitchell did not order his men to render aid to Mudin, whom he believed might still be alive, and possibly a threat. Instead, he ordered Staff Sgt. Kris Sprague to "make sure" the boy was dead. Sprague raised his rifle and fired twice.
*
As the soldiers milled around the body, a local elder who had been working in the poppy field came forward and accused Morlock and Holmes of murder. Pointing to Morlock, he said that the soldier, not the boy, had thrown the grenade. Morlock and the other soldiers ignored him.
*
No one seemed more pleased by the kill than Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, the platoon's popular and hard-charging squad leader. "It was like another day at the office for him," one soldier recalls. Gibbs started "messing around with the kid," moving his arms and mouth and "acting like the kid was talking." Then, using a pair of razor-sharp medic's shears, he reportedly sliced off the dead boy's pinky finger and gave it to Holmes, as a trophy for killing his first Afghan.
*
After the killing, the soldiers involved in Mudin's death were not disciplined or punished in any way. Emboldened, the platoon went on a shooting spree over the next four months that claimed the lives of at least three more innocent civilians. When the killings finally became public last summer, the Army moved aggressively to frame the incidents as the work of a "rogue unit" operating completely on its own, without the knowledge of its superiors. Military prosecutors swiftly charged five low-ranking soldiers with murder, and the Pentagon clamped down on any information about the killings.
*
But a review of internal Army records and investigative files obtained by Rolling Stone, including dozens of interviews with members of Bravo Company compiled by military investigators, indicates that the dozen infantrymen being portrayed as members of a secretive "kill team" were operating out in the open, in plain view of the rest of the company. . . . . "The platoon has a reputation," a whistle-blower named Pfc. Justin Stoner told the Army Criminal Investigation Command. "They have had a lot of practice staging killings and getting away with it."
*
Other officers were also in a position to question the murders. Neither 3rd Platoon's commander, Capt. Matthew Quiggle, nor 1st Lt. Roman Ligsay has been held accountable for their unit's actions, despite their repeated failure to report killings that they had ample reason to regard as suspicious. In fact, supervising the murderous platoon, or even having knowledge of the crimes, seems to have been no impediment to career advancement.
*
The photos, obtained by Rolling Stone, portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops in which killing Afghan civilians is less a reason for concern than a cause for celebration. "Most people within the unit disliked the Afghan people, whether it was the Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army or locals," one soldier explained to investigators. "Everyone would say they're savages." One photo shows a hand missing a finger. Another depicts a severed head being maneuvered with a stick, and still more show bloody body parts, blown-apart legs, mutilated torsos. Several show dead Afghans, lying on the ground or on Stryker vehicles, with no weapons in view.
*
Even before the war crimes became public, the Pentagon went to extraordinary measures to suppress the photos – an effort that reached the highest levels of both governments. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and President Hamid Karzai were reportedly briefed on the photos as early as May, and the military launched a massive effort to find every file and pull the pictures out of circulation before they could touch off a scandal on the scale of Abu Ghraib.
*
By suppressing the photos, however, the Army may also have been trying to keep secret evidence that the killings of civilians went beyond a few men in 3rd Platoon.
*
Army prosecutors insist that blame for the killings rests with a soldier near the bottom of the Stryker Brigade's totem pole: Calvin Gibbs, a three-tour veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan who served as a squad leader in 3rd Platoon. Morlock and five soldiers charged with lesser crimes have pleaded guilty in exchange for testifying against Gibbs, who faces life in prison for three counts of premeditated murder.
*
The 26-year-old staff sergeant has been widely portrayed as a sociopath of Mansonesque proportions, a crazed killer with a "pure hatred for all Afghans" who was detested and feared by those around him. But the portrait omits evidence that the Army's own investigators gathered from soldiers in Bravo Company. "Gibbs is very well-liked in the platoon by his seniors, peers and subordinates alike," Spc. Adam Kelly reported, . .
*
Given the lack of response from their superiors, the soldiers of 3rd Platoon now believed they could kill with impunity – provided they planted "drop weapons" at the scene to frame their victims as enemy combatants. The presence of a weapon virtually guaranteed that a shooting would be considered a legitimate kill, even under the stricter rules of engagement the military had implemented as a key element of counterinsurgency. A drop weapon was the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card. And in the chaotic war zone, they were easy to find.
*
The article goes on for many more pages, but you get the drift - it's a disgusting testament to what happens when others are dehumanized and a macho culture has not restraints imposed. It is important to remember that all Americans are guilty by association with these atrocities. Meanwhile, Bradley Manning is held at Quantico under horrible conditions. WTF is wrong with this country?

More Bigotry from Child Rapist Enablers in Catholic Hierarchy

Rather than clean its own house and turn those who enabled the rape of countless children and youths over to the authorities, the Catholic Church hierarchy continues to engage in anti-gay bigotry and the condemnation of in vitro fertilization. The latter actions demonstrating that the Church with its anti-birth control mantra prefers that individuals be forced to parent children they never wanted while those who want children never have them. It's more of what I view as the Church's increasingly ass backwards reasoning that derives in no small part from the power and control crazed senile [and bitter] old queens at the Vatican and throughout the Church hierarchy. The first dose of batshitery comes from the Vatican reaction to the award of the Nobel prize for medicine to British doctor Robert G. Edwards for his work on in vitro fertilization. The bitch queens say the award is inappropriate. What's inappropriate is that anyone in the right mind continues to listen to the Vatican on any issue. The second dose is in the form of Twin Cities Archbishop John C. Nienstedt's refusal to give communion to gay Catholics. Here are highlights from CNN on the Vatican's tantrum over the Nobel prize award to Dr. Edwards:
*
An official with the Vatican criticized the decision to award the Nobel prize for medicine to British doctor Robert G. Edwards for his work on in vitro fertilization, Italy's official news agency ANSA reported Tuesday.
*
Ignazio Carrasco de Paula, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said giving the award to Edwards was "completely inappropriate," according to the news agency. He said Edwards' work had created a market for human eggs and created problems of embryos being frozen, the news agency said.
*
His work has led to the birth of about four million babies, the committee said in praising his work. The prize is worth 10 million Swedish kronor (about $1.5 million). Born in Manchester, England, in 1925, Edwards is based at Cambridge University in England.
*
As for the Twin Cities' archbishop's latest actions - which follow his endorsement of an anti-gay DVD distribution effort - here are highlights from the Star Tribune:
*
Twin Cities Archbishop John C. Nienstedt, leading a student mass at St. John's Abbey recently, refused to give communion to members of a gay and lesbian college student group who were wearing rainbow buttons in a sign of solidarity.
*
The conflict between the archbishop and students from the Roman Catholic St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict occurred during Sunday night
*
The action came as Catholics throughout Minnesota have been sent hundreds of thousands of DVDs from the state's bishops in support of a ban on gay marriage.

Germany and Ireland call on Catholic Church to Hold Child Sex Abuse Inquiries

Things seem to be only getting worse for the Roman Catholic Church in Europe and in my view deservedly so. The question remains as to how bad things need to get before Benedict XVI will have no choice but to act and/or resign himself. The Guardian is reporting that in Ireland and Germany the demand for national inquiries is growing. Meanwhile increasingly damaging information and columns are coming out detailing Benedict XVI pivotal role in directing cover ups during his tenure as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a/k/a the Inquisition. Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens have particularly damming columns that focus on BenedictXVI's gross malfeasance. I have sympathy for rank and file Catholics who with the best of intentions have foolishly trusted Church leaders - as I stupidly did myself for many years - but I have no sympathy for Benedict and his morally bankrupt senior clerics. Think of your own children, nieces and nephews and ask yourself how any true Christian could have been so callous and uncaring. Then remember the real motives that drive the Church hierarchy: money, power and control. Actually living the Gospel message would seem to have nothing to do with it. First, some highlights from The Guardian:
*
The crisis gripping the Catholic church deepened today, with calls for national inquiries to be held in Germany and Ireland to fully disclose the detail and extent of sexual abuse by priests. With hundreds of allegations surfacing in Europe since the start of the year, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said the scandal of abuse in the country's churches and schools posed a "major challenge" that could be resolved only through a full and frank inquiry into all cases.
*
In Ireland, which has already seen far-reaching investigations into the abuse, the Archbishop of Dublin said a national inquiry into historic claims may be the only way to fully restore confidence in the church. The most senior Catholic in the country, Cardinal Sean Brady, resisted intense pressure to resign over his part in helping cover up the scandal.
*
The scale of the abuse – with additional allegations of clerical scandals emerging in Switzerland, Austria and Brazil – has caused as much alarm in some quarters as has the church's response.
*
Merkel's intervention revealed the level of concern in Germany. Addressing the Bundestag in her first public statement on the subject, she called the sexual abuse of children a "despicable crime". She added: "The only way for our society to come to terms with it is to look for the truth and find out everything that has happened."
*
Andrew Sullivan and Hitchens rightly focus on the top of the hierarchy that has made abuse cover ups a standard Church policy. Andrew states as follows concerning Benedict XVI which echos my own thoughts:
*
But if the Pope asked Brady to resign, wouldn't he also have to ask himself to resign? After all, the Pope was part of a similar cover-up in Germany in which then-cardinal Ratzinger knowingly assigned a pedophile priest to therapy, without informing the authorities that he knew that the priest had forced an eleven year old boy to fellate him, and then allowed that priest to continue in his career, with his finally being convicted of more child abuse six years later. He was only removed from pastoral duties a few days ago.
*
I don't know of many things I find as repugnant as knowingly putting the interests of an institution's public relations before children's protection from molestation. Yet this is the Pope we have. This is the moral judgment he made. How can anyone retain confidence in that figurehead? How can any orthodox Catholic not find this repugnant? And what has the Pope done since this has been revealed? He has said nothing, and put out a p.r. campaign to accuse critics in Germany of being anti-Catholic.
*
How much more do we have to see, how much more damage has to be done to human beings, before the hierarchy cones to terms with its denial about homosexuality, its warped psyche on sexuality, the brutal consequences of its celibacy requirements ... and the total iniquity of allowing children and teens in your care, entrusted to men of God, to be raped and abused and molested with impunity for years? When will this Pope step down?
*
In his column in the Washington Post, Hitchens fleshes out the details of just how responsible Benedict XVI has been in the massive policy of cover up and reassignment of sexual predators to positions where they could molest additional victims:
*
There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that goes with it. The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.
*
Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office ... under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)
*
Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil--a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice--and speedily at that.

More Roman Catholic Church Insanity

There are days when I truly wonder why anyone remains a Roman Catholic. After all, if one is not self-hating and fails to view themselves as less than a pile of dung, then they're not a good Catholic. Likewise, anything enjoyable that removes one from constant misery and self-deprecation is bad. Indeed, the insanity and bizarre behavior of top Church clerics seems to know few limits - and that's even if one ignores the world wide sexual abuse scandal haunting the Church and its hierarchy which care more for protecting the Church from scandal rather than the lives and well being of molested minors. Talk about screwed up priorities. WWJD? First, we have the new Archbishop of of Belgium equating homosexuality with anorexia. Here are highlights from Radio Netherlands:
*
"Homosexuality is not the same as normal sex in the same way that anorexia is not a normal appetite," says the new Archbishop of Belgium. Archbishop Léonard's comments were made in an interview with a Belgian television station. He added that he would " never call anorexia patients abnormal."
*
A few years ago, when he was serving as Bishop of Namen, he caused a storm of controversy when he said that homosexuality was abnormal. Last week Pope Benedict XVI named him as the successor to Archbishop Daniels. Archbishop Léonard is also a well-known critic of abortion and stem cell research.

*

As if this bigotry and refusal to accept modern mental health knowledge was not bad enough, now a new book on the anything but saintly Pope John "let's protect sexual predators" Paul II discloses some of the late Pontiff's bizarre behavior in respect to self-flagellation. MSNBC has the details. Here are some highlights:

*
At a news conference Tuesday, Oder defended John Paul's practice of self-mortification, which some faithful use to remind them of the suffering of Jesus on the cross.
*
In the book, Oder wrote that John Paul frequently denied himself food — especially during the holy season of Lent — and "frequently spent the night on the bare floor," messing up his bed in the morning so he wouldn't draw attention to his act of penitence.
*
"But it wasn't limited to this. As some members of his close entourage in Poland and in the Vatican were able to hear with their own ears, John Paul flagellated himself. In his armoire, amid all the vestments and hanging on a hanger, was a belt which he used as a whip and which he always brought to Castel Gandolfo," the papal retreat where John Paul vacationed each summer.
*
While there had long been rumors that John Paul practiced self-mortification, the book provides the first confirmation and concludes John Paul did so as an example of his faith.
*
I have a counter analysis of John Paul II's self-mortification: perhaps it was done in penance for all of the thousands of children and youth he failed as he continued to protect predator priests and their enablers within the Church hierarchy. How anyone who allowed many thousands to be sexually abused worldwide can be considered for sainthood is mind boggling.

Breaking Faith - The Catholic Church Again Betrays Victims

I blogged about the bankruptcy filing by the Catholic Archdiocese of Wilmington towards the first of the week - literally on the eve of the commencement of civil suits brought by the victims of predator priests. In the aftermath of the filing, many have criticized the Church's tactics, including the Philadelphia Inquirer which carried a scathing editorial basically accusing the archdiocese of continuing the cover up efforts. The editorial is on point because the bankruptcy filing by the archdiocese - the 7th diocese in the USA to file for bankruptcy protection - was clearly intended to halt the civil trials and likely had the intent of intimidating plaintiffs to settle their claims and keep the lurid details out of the media. Pope Benedict XVI can claim remorse, but until the Church faces the damage done to victims and punishes members of the hierarchy who engaged in cover ups and/or enabled predator priests, such feigned contrition will be false and yet more lies to the public and the Church laity. Here are some highlights from the editorial:

*

The best way for Wilmington's Roman Catholic Bishop W. Francis Malooly to demonstrate his stated concern for "all victims of sexual abuse by priests of our diocese" would be to give those victims their day in court. Instead, Malooly's eleventh-hour decision Sunday to file for bankruptcy protection effectively halted the first of eight clergy sex-abuse trials set to start the next day. That will have the net effect to further delay or perhaps thwart many victims' long quest for justice.

*

In other words, the bishop claims he doesn't want one big verdict to deplete the church coffers and leave nothing for the other victims. Puh-leeze.

*

Given the real-world impact of the bankruptcy claim, there's no way around the perception that Delaware church officials have ducked for cover - in what one attorney for an abuse-case plaintiff called "scandal prevention." Indeed, the first trial in a civil damages lawsuit brought by a former altar boy, John M. Vai, 57, would have revealed chilling testimony about violent sex acts by a priest from 1966 to 1970, according to Vai's attorneys. Now, those embarrassing allegations and many others won't be aired in open court for months and months, if at all. Nor will the public hear any details of church leaders' efforts to cover for predator priests.

*

In Philadelphia alone, hundreds of abuse victims have been awaiting justice since a scathing grand jury report in 2005. The report concluded that 63 archdiocesan priests had sexually abused children and that top church leaders helped cover for some. But church officials across the nation continue to fight statute moratoriums with specious claims that victims' lawsuits will lead to parish closings, and several dioceses have resorted to the dubious bankruptcy claim.

*

Had Wilmington church officials allowed the civil cases to go forward, they would have avoided the perception that the cover-up continues.

*

The moral bankruptcy of the Catholic Church hierarchy continues unabated. Sadly, given the Church's governance structure, there is little hope that things will change anytime soon. Lies, cover ups and tactics to further abuse victims remain the norm.

Navy Investigation Finds Hazing and Harassment - Gay Victim Expelled Under DADT While Abuser Promoted.

A number of LGBT blogs and web sites had picked up this story about yet another case of psychologically sick and twisted heterosexual members of the military engaging in sexually charged hazing and harassment. Worse yet, Michael Toussaint, the Chief over the unit during the period that the abuse occurred, has been promoted to Senior Chief and is now stationed with the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group at the Dam Neck Naval Base in nearby Virginia Beach, Virginia. Meanwhile, one of the victims, Joseph Christopher Rocha, had his career ended under DADT. Among some of the perverse conduct overseen by Toussaint included the following:

*

All say the tone was set by Chief Toussaint. Some sailors participated in the culture of hazing as victims, others as perpetrators, or in some cases both. They say the hazing continued because of a series of threats that were also integral to the culture of the unit, which not only tolerated abuse, but also invited it. To prevent them from speaking out, sailors Youth Radio interviewed say Toussaint would threaten to revoke their handlers’ licenses--taking away their dogs and their specialty in the Navy.

*

Another incident cited in the investigation found that two female service members were ordered to simulate sex with each other on video. According to the Findings of Fact, the women were handcuffed to a bed and appeared to be naked under a sheet.

*

Again, that this type of nastiness and abuse of power is allowed to go on makes a mockery out of the feeble excuse for DADT being needed to protect unit moral and cohesiveness. Its supporters can dress up DADT however they want, but in the final analysis its only justification is the legalization of religious based anti-gay discrimination and homophobia. Instead of receiving a promotion, Toussaint should have been expelled from the Navy. Some of the Navy investigation report that confirmed the abuse can be found here. Even the Virginian Pilot is now reporting on the abuse and misconduct that occurred. Here are some highlights:

*

An internal Navy investigation of a dog-handling unit in Bahrain found repeated episodes of hazing and sexual harassment in 2005, as well as allegations that prostitutes were routinely brought into government quarters for parties. The non commissioned officer who allegedly allowed and encouraged the abuse to flourish was promoted and is now assigned to an elite special warfare unit at Dam Neck Annex to Oceana Naval Air Station.

*

"These actions don't reflect who we are as a Navy," said Cmdr. Cappy Surette, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.

*
Most of the documents' pages have some information redacted, and entire sections - including the investigator's opinion and recommendations - were removed before the document was released. It is unclear whether anyone was punished for the alleged abuses.
But three things are clear:
*

- Senior Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint remains in the Navy and has been promoted since serving as head of the military working-dog division in Bahrain.
*

- Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Valdivia, a dog handler, was found dead in her living quarters on the Bahrain base. Her death was reportedly a suicide.

*
- Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha - called "an exceptionally outstanding young sailor" in a performance evaluation and recommended by the secretary of the Navy for an appointment to the Naval Academy - is out of the military [under DADT] and in treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder that resulted from two years of alleged abuse.

*

Central to the unfolding story is Petty Officer 1st Class Shaun Hogan, a dog handler who was assigned to Bahrain with Toussaint, Valdivia and Rocha. . . . Hogan said in an interview Friday that he witnessed many of the alleged abuses, including a videotaped "training scenario" in which Rocha was directed to simulate homosexual sex.

*
Hogan said he participated in that exercise as a dog handler. When he entered the room with his dog, he said, "I was expecting to find someone role-playing an intruder. I didn't expect to see somebody role-playing homosexual sex." Hogan said he saw a videotape of another "training scenario" involving a woman handcuffed to a bed. The woman in the bed, he said, was Valdivia, the unit's second-in-command.

*

"There are a lot of people who were victimized," Hogan said. "I think the Navy is trying to cover this up." Particularly galling to him, Hogan said, is that Toussaint, whom he considers the ringleader of the alleged abuses, not only escaped punishment but received a career boost. "To the best of my knowledge, the charges were dropped," he said. "The guy got promoted, and now he's in charge of the most coveted canine position in the entire Navy - the canine special warfare unit. That's the Navy's way of punishing him?"

*

Rocha left the Navy after acknowledging he was gay. He said the abuse began after he refused to have sex with a female prostitute in Bahrain - something he claimed was common among other masters-at-arms and dog handlers in the unit. Rocha is now attending classes at the University of San Diego. In an interview Friday, he said he continues to suffer PTSD symptoms, including nightmares, anxiety attacks and extreme depression.

*

Rocha said he was assured by his commanding officer in Bahrain that Toussaint would be punished. In late 2007, he said, a Navy lawyer contacted him and asked if he would testify in a court-martial. Even though he was afraid of retribution from Toussaint, he said, he finally agreed. Weeks later, he said, the lawyer called back and said the case was being closed and his testimony would not be needed.

*

As I read this case, the moral is that members of the military who are straight sexual perverts and sadists get promoted while exceptional gay service members are forced out. Something is very, very fucked up in this picture. No doubt, the sexually disturbed Elaine Donnelly thinks all of this is fine since the gay guy was thrown out of the military.