(from the San Francisco Chronicle)

by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

A federal judge assigned a magistrate as a mediator Tuesday to try to resolve the case of Josh Wolf, the blogger who has been in prison nearly six months for refusing to turn over a videotape of a  protest to a federal grand jury. U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who held Wolf in contempt of court in August and has rejected several defense requests to free him, said in a brief order that he was referring the case to U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero “in the interest of reaching a resolution satisfactory to both sides.”

Alsup did not mention any basis for a possible settlement or otherwise explain his order. Neither the U.S. attorney’s office nor Wolf had requested mediation. Dan Siegel, a lawyer for Wolf, said he was “pleased but mystified” by the order.

Wolf, 24, an activist and freelance video journalist, filmed part of a July 2005 protest in San Francisco’s Mission District against an international economic conference in Scotland. During the demonstration, a police officer was hit in the head and suffered a fractured skull, and someone allegedly tried to set a city police car on fire with a bottle rocket.

The federal grand jury is investigating the possibility that the attack on the police car was a federal crime because the Police Department receives funding from Washington. Some of Wolf’s video was shown on local television, but he has refused to release the outtakes to federal authorities. Wolf says they contain no evidence of a crime and that he is unwilling to assist the prosecution.

Wolf became the longest-imprisoned journalist for contempt of court in U.S. history Feb. 6, his 169th day at the federal prison in Dublin. He could be held until July, when the grand jury’s term expires, or for an additional six months if prosecutors extend the jury’s term.

Neither side has given any indication of an impending compromise.

In the most recent prosecution filing, successfully opposing a defense motion to have Wolf released, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Finigan described Wolf as “delusional” and a self-styled “journalistic martyr” who had not really been acting as a journalist, just someone with a video camera at a public event.

He also said a defense lawyer’s offer to turn over the videotape, an offer the lawyer denies he made, showed that imprisonment is having its intended effect — to pressure Wolf into cooperating.

Wolf, in an interview from prison Friday with the Pacifica network’s “Democracy Now” radio show, said it is a “scary idea” that the government could decide who is a journalist. He said his case shows the need for “a free media that’s not encumbered by interference, that doesn’t force journalists to act as agents of the state.”

Two days ago, the VT Legislature passed troop withdrawal resolutions. Some view state-level resolutions as meaningless – they’re non-binding on anyone for anything. However, they send a “sense of the state” to the national delegation. The national delegation doesn’t have to follow up in any way, but they often do. Why? Because the state legislature only sends a message if there’s overwhelming public support.

Today, Senator Leahy had the spoke on the Senate floor. Here is a choice quote:

As one who for years has fought for veterans benefits, for fair treatment for the National Guard, for armor for our troops who were sent into battle unprepared, and for replacing the depleted stocks of essential equipment that our troops need and depend on, the absurd accusation that it is unpatriotic to disagree with a policy that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and created a terrorist haven in a country that before posed no threat to the United States, has worn thin.

…

It reminds me of my days as a prosecutor.  When a defendant was caught red-handed, the predictable response was to attack the accuser. …

The full text is below the fold.

[crossposted elsewhere]

Before dropping into the full text, however, I ask anyone outside of Vermont to take the lesson from Vermont’s approach and apply it in your state – especially if you live in a state with a presidential hopeful or with a Republican legislator who is up for re-election in ’08.

Get the message sent from below that constituents’ will cannot be ignored forever. Give them a reason to jump the party ship on this war, and to do the right thing for our troops, our country, and the world.

Thank you Senator Leahy, for standing up for our country and our troops. Thank you for standing with Senators Obama and Feingold in working to bring a real end to this unjust war.

Remarks Of U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy
The War In Iraq
February 15, 2007

Mr. President, a week ago the distinguished Majority Leader tried every which way to provide the Senate with an opportunity to debate a bipartisan resolution on Iraq.  That effort failed because it was blocked by some in the Minority party, who insisted on a separate vote that was nothing more than a political ploy.  Instead of a debate on the President’s policy, they wanted the debate to be about who “supports” the troops.

As has so often been the case when anyone has asked a question, expressed reservations, or outright opposed the President’s failed policy in Iraq, his defenders accuse his detractor of not being patriotic or of not supporting the troops.

As one who for years has fought for veterans benefits, for fair treatment for the National Guard, for armor for our troops who were sent into battle unprepared, and for replacing the depleted stocks of essential equipment that our troops need and depend on, the absurd accusation that it is unpatriotic to disagree with a policy that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and created a terrorist haven in a country that before posed no threat to the United States, has worn thin.

It reminds me of my days as a prosecutor.  When a defendant was caught red-handed, the predictable response was to attack the accuser.  That is what has been going on here since President Bush, Vice President Cheney and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, ignoring all advice to the contrary, led us into this costly fiasco.  These flawed policies have thrust our troops into the maw of a bloody civil war.  Our troops are not responsible for the mistaken policies they have been asked to implement.  Policymakers in Washington are responsible for that.  And only decision makers in Washington can change those policies. 

The polls show unmistakably that a majority of the American people wants the Congress to debate and vote on the President’s policy in Iraq.  They know that Iraq is the key issue of today, they see that it is a widening civil war, and they want their sons and daughters out of there, in as sensible a timeframe and as sensible a plan as we can muster. It is that simple, and that is what we should be debating.

The costs of this misadventure have not just been onerous; they have been catastrophic.  More than 3,000 Americans killed, and more than 20,000 wounded.  Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives.  In material terms we are fast approaching the one trillion dollar mark, throwing money out the door at a rate of more than $2 billion per week to fund this war.  Our international reputation and the influence it brings, including among our allies, has been badly tarnished and diminished.

Where are we in Iraq?  We are in the midst of a civil war among religious and ethnic factions, an insurgency that shows no sign of diminishing, and out-of-control organized crime.  It is hard to say that we have made any real progress toward the larger objectives of bringing democracy to Iraq or the Middle East.  It is time we face the grim reality, and it is time we deal with it.  Our soldiers’ lives are in the balance.

I made a brief statement on Tuesday about an column in last Sunday’s Washington Post by retired Lieutenant General William Odom.  General Odom has one of the most distinguished military intelligence careers, and he continues to provide powerful insights on national security.  In his piece entitled “Victory in Not an Option,” he outlines how this Administration’s entire policy on Iraq, including the so-called surge strategy, is based on a self-defeating inability to face reality.

The reality, according to the general, is that we are not going to make Iraq a democracy and that the longer we stay, the more likely Iraq will be anti-American at the end of our intervention.

Our invasion made civil war and increased Iranian involvement in Iraq inevitable, and no amount of military force — especially after so many errors of judgment — will prevent those outcomes. 

Meanwhile, our presence is only stoking al Qaeda’s involvement in Iraq.  The reality is that supporting our troops does not mean keeping them there to carry out a failed strategy.  It means pursuing a course that protects the country’s interests and prevents more Americans from dying in pursuit of an ill-defined, open-ended strategy that cannot succeed. 

General Odom knows that we need to begin an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.  He argues that we should join with other countries in the region – those whose input this Administration has often ignored – and seek to stabilize the region through sustained, high level diplomacy.

These views are in line with those of some our senior military officers, other national security experts, many of us in Congress, and a majority of the American people.

Yet look at what the Administration and it defenders in the Minority party offer instead.  We get filibusters that stymie a debate on our Iraq policy.  We get the same old rhetoric about not supporting the troops.  And we get a bill from the President for another $100 billion to send 20,000 more troops and continue the war.

If the President cannot face the reality that even members of his own party increasingly have come to accept, then it is our responsibility, our patriotic duty, our moral duty, to act.  A non-binding resolution that sends a clear message in opposition to an escalation of troops is better than years of the silence of a rubberstamp Congress.  But we know the President will ignore it; he has already said so.  It is only a first step.

I support binding legislation by Senator Obama and Senator Feingold to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.  It is not our role to choose sides in a civil war.  It is not our troops’ role to die trying to force these warring factions to settle their age-old differences.
We need to continue to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  We need to deploy sufficient forces and intelligence assets to track down international terrorists around the world.  We need to do a lot better job of policing our borders without denying entry to innocent people who are fleeing persecution. 

General Odom is right.  Keeping our troops in Iraq is not making us safer.  We should begin bringing our troops home.  Congress has it in its power to force the President to change course.  That is what the American people want, and that is what we should be debating.

Here’s a little something I threw together with the help of some friends:

Whereas, approximately 2,300 Vermont National Guard troops have served in Iraq since March of 2003, and

Whereas, Vermont has had the highest number of soldiers per capita who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in this war, and

Whereas, approximately 80 Vermont National Guard troops are now deployed in Iraq, and more could be deployed in the coming months if the Bush Administration policies continue in the current direction, and

Whereas, at the time the Iraq conflict started in March 2003, the American public was told that the primary reason for this incursion was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had allegedly stockpiled, and it has been since documented that no weapons of mass destruction were stockpiled in Iraq at the time the American military forces entered that country, and

Whereas, it is now apparent that the U.S. Department of Defense did not develop an exit strategy prior to the invasion, falsely assuming that the Iraqi people would welcome United States forces with open arms, and that withdrawal would not be a difficult problem, and

Whereas, the continuing and daily onslaught of sectarian violence and indications of ethnic cleansing in some areas of the nation have proven disruptive to nearly all aspects of Iraqi society, and

Whereas, over 3,000 American military personnel have died since March 2003, and

Whereas, many Vermont veterans have returned home from Iraq and the region with significant unmet physical and mental health care needs, and

Whereas, the cost of this war according to the Congressional Research Service is at least $379 billion, and

Whereas, based on the state’s population, Vermont’s share of the cost exceeds $750 million, and

Whereas, these costs will have a significant impact on Vermont households and the Vermont state budget process for years to come, and

Whereas, the Bush Administration recently called for and has started to implement an escalation in the number of American military troops actively engaged in Iraq, now therefore be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives that:

“[W]e should be focusing this energy on the next election cycle.”

Imagine if the logic Gaye Symington applied to Vermont’s impeachment resolution were applied consistently.

Imagine what would have happened to the recently-passed anti-escalation resolution, if Gaye Symington’s complaint that, “The Legislature has a very short amount of time to do its work and needs to focus its work on the issues most affecting Vermonters – property taxes, health care, and our energy future,” were applied across the board.

“But wait,” you say. “Gaye had a fuller explanation than that.”

Indeed she did: “We have a very limited amount of time dealing with national issues. The Iraq War has a direct impact on Vermonters in terms of the lives lost and the budget pressure that gets pushed onto the property taxes when we’re cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and special education reimbursements.”

She’s right, you know. The Iraq War does have a direct impact on Vermonters, in precisely those terms. But given that the U.S. Congress is already debating a non-binding resolution calling for exactly the same end (if not with so many flourishes of outrage before coming to the point), what exactly made this resolution such an efficient use of the legislature’s “very limited amount of time” for such things?

After all, Vermont is one of more than twenty states at various stages of taking up such a resolution. And it’s great to be in such good company, I’m sure. But consider what’s actually happening here: Vermont and its sister states are building consensus for… something that’s already under consideration in Congress. Might not the “very limited time” be better spent encouraging Congress to do what it has thus far been afraid to do, for lack of an organized show of support like the one undertaken in Montpelier on Tuesday? After all, aren’t we all agreed that as fine as it was to offer the resolution on the war, that ball is already rolling and gathering steam in Congress?

Of course, it must also be noted that in all likelihood, President Bush will not be moved by Congressional action. Certainly not by a non-binding resolution. Congressional leaders are already well aware that the non-binding resolution is but the first of a number of steps that will be necessary to isolate the president politically, as he hangs onto his insane claims of absolute power as “Commander in Chief.” They’re already preparing attempts to limit Bush’s ability to deploy troops not fully combat ready, to cap the number of tours our troops can be forced to serve in Iraq, and perhaps eventually to use the “power of the purse” to limit federal defense expenditures expressly and exclusively to redeployment.

The problem, though, is that the Bush “administration” doesn’t recognize any warmaking power other than its own. Congress, the courts, the states, all are ultimately just so many distractions. The Constitution, Bush and his advisers believe, vests all military decision making in the president, a concept rightly identified as the “Nixon/Bush Doctrine.”

As a result, you can expect to see no action in response to the non-binding resolution. This much you’ve probably already anticipated. But you can also expect to see signing statements attached to bills purporting to restrict the president’s ability to deploy troops, and the “reprogramming” of Defense Department funds (as they did when they diverted funds for Afghanistan to prepare for the then still secret Iraq war planning) or even funds from elsewhere in the government to pay for operations otherwise forbidden by Congress.

At that point, we’ll be looking at a genuine constitutional crisis, and the Congress will likely be at a loss for what to do.

And the Vermont legislature, if Gaye Symington gets her way, will have offered them only the now-stale advice: pretty please, stop the escalation.

When the Congress stands at the brink of constitutional crisis and stares into the abyss, wondering whether the American people have the fortitude to undertake the reclamation of our very system of government, Vermont, Gaye Symington says, should be AWOL.

Focus, she says, on the next election cycle.

There’s still a chance, though, for Symington to both do the right thing and keep her logic consistent.

Take up the impeachment resolution. Take a day to deal with the coming crisis for our country and our Constitution, just as you took a day to deal with its present one.

Take the reins. Put Vermont out front, and be the first to declare your readiness to support and defend the Constitution, so that you’re there when the Congress needs you, not rushing to bring up the rear.

The people are way ahead of the Congress on this, and they’re going to show you that in no uncertain terms, right there in Vermont on Town Meeting day.

Most of the rest of America just doesn’t have the  incredible opportunity Vermonters have to be heard by their government. (Of course, some town Select Boards have decided they just don’t want to hear them anymore.) The message, though, should be loud and clear to Symington: Vermonters want to look ahead and be prepared, and they expect that if their state government feels it has a role to play in federal affairs, that it approach that role with the intention of making a real impact.

Congress surely benefits from the wisdom of Vermont and her sister states on the war. But if they’re going to find the resolve to back these first steps up with real muscle, we’re going to have to show them we’re with them.

Vermont, for all the reasons Speaker Symington approved of in passing the anti-escalation resolution, should take the lead in assuring Congress that we’ll have their backs when they actually need to do something about it.

That’s right. One year. Been a long time since that very first diary. Five-hundred and thirty some User IDs later, here we are.

Something on your mind? Not enough for a diary? Knock yerselves out…