North Dakota Has A Troll Move to Kill the Popular Vote Compact

It’s hard to determine the popular vote if some states refuse to provide the raw numbers and will only publish percentages.

I was initially confused when I saw what’s going on in North Dakota.

The North Dakota Senate this week passed a bill which aims to forbid election officials from disclosing how many actual votes are cast for each candidate in upcoming presidential elections.  The total tallies would only be disclosed after future Electoral Colleges convene to select an official victor.

The Republicans have a 40-7 majority in the North Dakota Senate and this bill passed easily in a bipartisan 43-3 vote. I thought perhaps it won Democratic support because the object of the legislation was to prevent future efforts at election tampering like we saw in Georgia, where President Trump asked Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” precisely 11,780 votes.

The legislation would allow the state’s election officials to disclose the percentage won by each candidate, but not the total number of votes or the vote totals. Without that information, Trump wouldn’t have known how many votes he needed to win Georgia.

But I was being too optimistic. There is no good government motive beyond this legislation. Its aim is to thwart any effort to circumvent the Electoral College and elect the winner of the popular vote.

The bill is designed to prevent implementation of the national popular vote compact – a multi-state agreement aimed at circumventing the Electoral College…

…The national popular vote compact is a nascent agreement amongst a coalition of states which have enacted statutes dictating that their presidential electors only cast votes for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact—which would effectively neuter the Electoral College—takes effect once the coalition of states involved possess 270 or more electoral votes. According to nationalpopularvote.com, the agreement has been passed into law in 16 states possessing a total 196 Electoral College votes, including New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

The North Dakota law would prevent the state’s votes from being included in any effort to tally the popular vote until after the Electoral College meets, which would make it difficult if not impossible to use the popular vote compact.

I have to give the Republicans credit for creative thinking, but keeping the presidential election totals a state secret is a really extreme measure. Former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, Saul Anuzis, agrees, calling the measure “almost a Politburo situation from Soviet Russia.” Yet, three Democrats voted for it.

Biden May Regret Going Easy on Saudi Arabia’s Murderous Crown Prince

He promised there would be serious repercussions for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, but now he’s changed his mind.

After an unexplained delay of 24 hours, the Biden administration, through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, released the executive summary of the CIA’s classified assessment that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the operation that led to Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s 2018 murder and dismemberment.

The key findings are below:

News that the Intelligence Community believes MBS was responsible for Khashoggi’s death leaked in November 2018, so this isn’t some kind of revelation. What’s different is that the Biden administration is publicly acknowledging this fact, while Trump was at pains to confuse the matter, saying at the time, “Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event — maybe he did and maybe he didn’t! That being said, we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi.”

For Trump, a main concern was to prevent the public or Congress from demanding strong action against the Crown Prince that might complicate the bilateral relationship. The Biden administration differs mainly in its willingness to be transparent and take the heat. They appear just as apprehensive about angering the Saudis as the Trump administration, and their weak response is already receiving a scathing response. For example, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who counted Khashoggi among his friends, writes that “President Biden choked” and “appears ready to let the murderer walk.”

Despite removing support for Saudi Arabia’s role in Yemen’s civil war and putting a temporary stop on all weapons sales to the kingdom, the Biden administration’s “recalibration” of U.S.-Saudi relations upon coming into office hasn’t led to stronger measures. In particular, calls for MBS to be sanctioned and officially denied entry into the United States were not heeded.  Nor were calls for a permanent ban of weapons sales.

This seems like a broken promise, as on the campaign trial Biden said there  is “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia,” and promised to make them pay a price for the butchering of Khashoggi. Yet, it’s not as if the Biden administration has done nothing. In a call on Thursday with the 85-year old King Salman, Biden announced some modest repercussions.

Those actions, approved by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, include a travel ban on Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, who was deeply involved in the Khashoggi operation, and on the Rapid Intervention Force, a unit of the Saudi Royal Guard that protects Prince Mohammed — and is under his direct control.

Unfortunately, challenging the Saudis is neither easy nor cost-free, and David Sanger of the New York Times reports that Biden was convinced by his national security team that confronting MBS too severely is not a viable strategy.

The decision by Mr. Biden…came after weeks of debate in which his newly formed national security team advised him that there was no way to formally bar the heir to the Saudi crown from entering the United States, or to weigh criminal charges against him, without breaching the relationship with one of America’s key Arab allies.

Officials said a consensus developed inside the White House that the cost of that breach, in Saudi cooperation on counterterrorism and in confronting Iran, was simply too high.

Of course, we don’t know how the Saudis approached the situation. Knowing that the public release of the intelligence assessment was imminent, they may have made some credible threats that convinced the Biden administration to tread lightly. There are many American interests in play beyond cooperation on counterterrorism and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and it’s hard for an outsider to assess the stakes.

Having said that, Kristof makes a good point here:

But in this great balancing of values and interests, the towering risk is that M.B.S., who is just 35, will become king upon the death of his aging father and rule recklessly for many years, creating chaos in the Gulf and a rupture in Saudi-American relations that would last decades.

In other words, it’s precisely because Saudi Arabia is so important that Biden should stand strong and send signals — now, while there is a window for change — that the kingdom is better off with a new crown prince who doesn’t dismember journalists.

Kristof presumes, however, that U.S. pressure could have convinced an infirm 85-year old king to change his heir but it may be the intelligence community’s opinion that it is simply too late for that. If so, the next king will be a sociopath, and we’ll find out that avoiding confrontation now did not mean that confrontation could be indefinitely avoided.

As it stands, a different Saudi dissident disappeared last month after visiting the kingdom’s embassy in Ottawa. When we find out what happened to that individual, Biden may regret not taking a tougher line now.

 

Republicans Are Rejecting Democracy Because They Lost the Battle of Ideas

Trickle-down economics and deregulation have been a colossal failure.

Last September, Bill Kristol posited that American conservatism died in 2020.

Modern American conservatism was born in 1955, peaked in full flower in the 1980s, and then aged, mostly gracefully, for three decades. Until it could easily, if suddenly, be pushed aside in its dotage—forced, or induced, to surrender to its younger and stronger, if disreputable, distant relative.

In sum: 2020 was the year in which American conservatism as we have known it for three generations was weighed in the balance, and found wanting.

You don’t have to agree with Kristol about much of anything to see that he has a point. We might quibble, however, about the timing. As Jonathan Chait suggested, the conservatism that is dying is the one that’s been focused on rolling back the New Deal. I could provide you will all kinds of historical references to the battle Republicans have waged against the New Deal. But instead, I’ll simply share one of my favorite video clips, in which Ann Coulter says that, if she could be a person from history, she’d chose to be FDR and NOT introduce the New Deal. You’ll love Al Franken’s response.

For decades now, the central disagreement between Democrats and Republicans has been about the size and role of the federal government. When it comes to domestic politics, the GOP has promoted tax cuts in order to “starve the beast” and deregulation. In that way, Donald Trump fit right in with the classic Republican agenda. But no one paid much attention because the central theme of his message was nativism fueled by fear-mongering. That has now become the central theme of the Republican Party.

I’ve been suggesting for a while that, at this point, Republicans don’t actually have an agenda other than grievance politics. But as Democrats prepare to vote on a COVID stimulus package, something interesting is happening.

  1. Senator Mitt Romney has proposed a universal child allowance,
  2. Senators Tom Cotton and Mitt Romney have proposed raising the minimum wage to $10/hr, and
  3. Senator Josh Hawley has proposed a three-year program that would increase worker wages in 2021, paid by taxpayers rather than employers.
Romney’s universal child allowance has shifted a debate that used to take place between Democrats and Republicans to one that is happening within the GOP. Senators Rubio and Lee objected based on this argument:

We have long said that the Child Tax Credit must be further increased to help working families. In the current pandemic relief bill under consideration, we would support increasing the Child Tax Credit to $3,500, and $4,500 for young children.

However, we do not support turning the Child Tax Credit into what has been called a ‘child allowance,’ paid out as a universal basic income to all parents. That is not tax relief for working parents; it is welfare assistance.

In other words, Rubio and Lee are making a classic Republican argument: tax cuts are good and welfare is bad.

Since Romney, Cotton, and Hawley don’t have the votes to actually pass their proposals, the most likely rationale for them is to distract Democrats from being unified in their support of the COVID stimulus package. But it is still significant that they are putting alternatives forward that are basically Democratic-lite ideas.

That is a far cry from how Republicans responded to former President Obama’s stimulus proposal to address the Great Recession, as Chait points out.

During the Obama administration, Republicans embraced perhaps their purest anti–New Deal fundamentalism. Conservative members of Congress insisted Roosevelt’s policies had lengthened the Depression, and insisted only immediate spending cuts would restore the economy to health.

When it comes to actual policies being put forward by the two parties, we are witnessing a significant shift. Democratic policies are not only overwhelmingly popular with voters, they have been demonstrated to work. On the other hand, the Republican policies of trickle-down economics and deregulation have been a colossal failure, but conservatives haven’t come up with a reasonable alternative. They’re stuck arguing among themselves about whether to return to those failed policies or embrace a Democratic-lite alternative.

Recognizing the shift that’s underway, over at The Bulwark, Richard North Patterson writes that Biden “wants to do to Ronald Reagan’s governing philosophy what Reagan did to FDR’s.”

As David Leonhardt has noted, since 1933 GDP under Democratic presidents has grown at nearly twice the rate as under Republican. Observes Leonhardt: “Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe—like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation.” In sum, the Reagan paradigm has outlived its time. The question becomes how best to replace it…

What Republicans have embraced in lieu of a policy agenda are anti-democratic means to maintain power: voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc. In many ways they are conceding that they lost the battle of ideas. That’s the good news. The bad news is that David Frum’s prediction is coming true. He once wrote that, “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”

Bill Kristol isn’t the only one pontificating about whether or not conservatism is dead. There’s a lot of chatter about where the Republican Party goes post-Trump. But to me, there are two clear paths they have to chose from: (1) develop policy proposals that will work and appeal to the majority of voters, or (2) reject democracy. For right now, the GOP has gone all-in on #2.

Saturday Painting Palooza Vol.811

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be continuing with the painting of the Connor Hotel in Jerome, Arizona. The photo that I’m using (My own from a recent visit.) is seen directly below.


I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 9×9 inch canvas panel.

When last seen the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.


Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

I have now added some paint to most areas of the canvas. I’m looking forward to painting the hotel, with its various details and shadows. I will have some of that for next week’s cycle.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.


I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.

Ted Cruz Welcomed Back to Senate With Mockery

His colleagues hate the Texas senator, but they’re stuck with him for another six years.

If you ever wondered if Ted Cruz is popular among his colleagues in the Senate, I think you now have an answer.

When senators arrived at the Senate gym on Wednesday morning, they found that one of them had taped memes on the lockers welcoming Cruz home and showing him in the short-sleeve polo shirt, jeans and Texas-flag mask that he had at the airport, according to two people familiar with the prank. “Bienvenido de Nuevo, Ted!” was the “welcome back” message typed at the top of the color printouts, one of which was viewed by NBC News.

The rendering featured a manipulated photo of Cruz from his well-documented trip to Mexico, dragging his luggage across an arctic landscape while holding a tropical cocktail garnished with a slice of fruit in his other hand. He is shown walking toward an image of a masked Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. with his arms crossed and wearing striped, knitted gloves — a pose famously captured during January’s inauguration.

Unfortunately, he just won another six-year term, so his colleagues are stuck with him.

Forget an Independent Commission for January 6, Get an Independent Prosecutor

Congress can’t effectively investigate itself, and a partisan commission won’t be seen as independent.

I don’t think Congress does a good job of doing major investigations, although the record isn’t completely conclusive. The Warren Commission, which conducted the first investigation of the assassination of JFK, was so unsatisfactory that the case was reopened again in the 1970’s and the 1990’s. The Iran-Contra investigation was better but inadvertently let Oliver North off the hook by making some of his evidence inadmissible in court. In any case, prosecutor Lawrence Walsh’s investigation was more thorough and mainly thwarted only by stonewalling and the Christmas Eve 1992 pardoning of many of the worst culprits. The 9/11 Commission provided a report that was generally accepted, but it couldn’t overcome–and was not designed to overcome–the Bush administration’s desire to shield the Saudi and Pakistani governments from accountability.

The best congressional investigation in history was Sen. Frank Church of Idaho’s exploration of the crimes and excesses of the intelligence community. The Church Committee, which was formed in 1975 and issued its report in 1976, was a spectacular success. But the concurrent Pike Committee, which was formed in the House to investigate the same issues, was a comparative failure. During the Trump administration, the best investigation was the Senate Intelligence Committee’s work on Russia’s role in the 2016 election, but it did very little original investigative work compared to Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s team, partly to avoid repeating some of the immunity problems that arose in the Iran-Contra investigation. The concurrent House investigation led by Rep. Devin Nunes, was a whitewash and a disgrace.

As you can see, historically, there has been three distinct ways of conducting major investigations. One is the blue ribbon panel used for JFK and 9/11, where well-respected non-politicians or ex-politicians are brought in and given subpoena power. Another is the partisan committee investigation used in the Church Committee, in Iran-Contra (by Sen. John Kerry’s Foreign Relations subcommittee), and for 2016 Russian election interference. The last is the special or independent prosecutor used in Iran-Contra and Russian meddling, but also in Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky.

It sounds like Nancy Pelosi wants to create a bit of a hybrid investigation of the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. It’s been widely characterized in the press as a 9/11 Commission-style proposal because it envisions a blue ribbon panel rather than a committee investigation. Yet, the Republicans don’t accept that characterization because the proposal calls for President Joe Biden to appoint three people, while the House and Senate leaders from both parties would each appoint two. In partisan terms, that would give the Democrats a 7-4 advantage rather than the even split on the 9/11 Commission. In this sense, it would be independent but partisan at the same time. Of course, Biden could lessen the impression of partisanship by filling his three positions with people of unknown political affiliation or who are widely respected even in Republican circles. This is what Lyndon Johnson attempted to do by picking the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to head the JFK commission and then putting folks like ex-CIA chief Allen Dulles on the panel. In retrospect, that just wound up leaving both liberals and conservatives suspicious about the outcome.

The problem with investigating January 6 is that we’re not looking at an assassination or foreign actors. We’re not looking only at a former administration. Sitting members of Congress are suspects. Current and former members of the Capitol Police need to be questioned. This argues powerfully for an independent commission. But it’s also only members from one side, the Republicans, who are under suspicion for conspiracy or culpability, and the GOP as a whole may be more interested in protecting itself from fallout than it is in assigning blame and responsibility to some its members. This argues against giving them an equal number of votes which they could use to reject subpoenas or avenues of investigation.

Worse, the Republicans want the power to issue subpoenas even over Democratic objections, which would be defensible if the Republicans were in the majority and were facing obstruction from the Democrats. But it’s already obvious that that want to use this subpoena power to derail the investigation into matters pertaining to the riots that often accompanied protests over the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The idea is that the Democrats only care about one kind of rioting.

This charge, even if true, has nothing to do with figuring out all the facts related to the January 6 insurrection. It’s just an effort to create moral equivalence and distract the public.

Under these circumstances, Pelosi’s proposal makes sense. But, in the end, I think the whole matter should be handled by a special prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. The prosecutor would be charged with issuing a report to Congress telling the full story and making non-political recommendations on Capitol security. All the pending cases for insurrectionists would be consolidated under their purview.

This solves two problems. It takes the matter out of Congress’s hands and avoids the debate over the partisan composition of the commission. It also has a chance of being more satisfactory than the investigations of previous special investigators because the Biden administration will be cooperative in a way that the Poppy Bush, Clinton, and Trump administrations were not. It won’t be possible for people to avoid testifying because subpoenas will be enforced and no pardons will be dangled.

It’s not a perfect solution, but it checks the most boxes and avoids the most obvious problems.

Trump is as Disinterested in His Business as a Daily Intelligence Report

Rather than taking the reins of the Trump Organization back from his sons, the former president is focused on exacting revenge.

The Washington Post has a piece by David Fahrenthold, Josh Dawsey and Jonathan O’Connell on the future of The Trump Organization. It’s not a surprise that the vultures are circling, hoping to buy up the scraps of the business at a discount considering the toxic brand of the Trump name after Donald Trump’s disastrous presidency. What I didn’t anticipate is that Trump would be disinterested in returning to his business career.

For now, however, Trump is a businessman again. Since he left office, his eldest sons — who ran the business while Trump was in the White House — have briefed their father extensively, according to Trump’s advisers.

But people who have spoken with Trump recently say he has shown little interest in taking back day-to-day control.

Instead, these people — who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations — said Trump has focused almost entirely on politics. They said he has talked about exacting revenge on his political enemies, securing more money for his political action committee and running for president again.

It has always been my belief that Trump did not run for president with the intention of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency. He hoped to use the publicity of his campaign to help his business empire, especially his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow which was then near the top of his mind. But I guess power is intoxicating and his interests and priorities have shifted.

I really expected that he’d make it a priority to take the reins of the business back from his sons, who I assumed he’d accuse of incompetence. Since the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump’s tax records must be shared with the Manhattan prosecutor’s office, this seems like it should be an urgent concern. If I were the ex-president, I’d be huddled with lawyers and forensic accountants, and looking for ways to raise revenues to pay all the back tax bills that are coming.

But I guess I should have learned from observing Trump’s work habits in the White House that he’s only motivated to seek attention, and his gift is to turn attention into money. That strategy currently works in the political sphere where he can get donations for a potential future run for the presidency, or simply to help him exact revenge on his enemies. But it’s not working nearly so well in the real estate and licensing world.

Republican senators should have understood this better. By acquitting him twice in impeachment trials, they kept him politically viable, at least in theory, and that gave him an easy way to make money he will now turn against them.

So, Trump is not returning to his office in Manhattan but rather hanging out in Florida where he’s laboring under the delusion that he has the luxury of plotting revenge while ignoring his business and legal problems. He turned half the country into a madhouse, so it’s fitting that he is also detached from reality. But his capacity to do evil is still off the charts, so there should be no let up on punishing him for his crimes. Even the Senate Republicans should understand this, and if they don’t already, they soon will.

Midweek Cafe and Lounge, Vol. 202

We made it to another Wednesday. How are you? The snow finally melted where I live. As we remember, the Arctic air mass got drunk last week and somehow passed out in the southern and southeastern portions of the US. Thankfully it finished its walk of shame back up north, where it can stay.

Let’s have some music. This is a piece by Pharoah Sanders (an Arkansas native) performed about four decades ago. I find it quite tranquil:

I’ll also add a Marion Brown track I was surprised to find, as it is on ECM, whose catalog YouTube usually keeps hidden tightly behind a subscription paywall. This goes along with my theme of experimental music and what are sometimes called “little instruments” or “found sounds”. This one also includes plenty of traditional instrumentation, albeit without a particularly conventional sound.

The bar is open, and the jukebox is infinite. Have a drink, and if you wish to talk, I’ll check on in from time to time.

Cheers!

Republicans Will Regret Opposing Deb Haaland

Native-Americans are paying close attention to Haaland’s confirmation vote and they will remember who opposed her.

I’m old enough to remember that when Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court the Senate Democrats were too terrified of offending Italian-Americans to cast a vote against him. Their fear was heightened by then-New York governor Mario Cuomo, thought of as a likely future Democratic presidential nominee, who made clear he wanted to see an Italian-American on the court regardless of Scalia’s ideology. There was only a brief debate before Scalia was confirmed in a 98-0 vote.

Today’s Republicans are not similarly cowed by the prospect of opposing Deb Haaland’s nomination to be Secretary of the Interior, which would make her the first Native-American cabinet member in the country’s history. They’re ignoring the trailblazing significance of the vote in favor of casting her as an environmental radical.

I actually don’t have a problem with that anymore than I would have had a problem with a senator telling Cuomo to pound sand on Scalia’s nomination. But the Republicans will probably regret their decision because, even without this offense, Native Americans just delivered Arizona to the Joe Biden and Senate candidate Mark Kelly. Some Republicans, like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, probably owe their political careers to the Native vote. A snub of Haaland will be remembered and most likely result higher political engagement from Native Americans and a more lopsided preference for the Democrats. This could be decisive in future elections, especially in places like Montana where Democrats are very competitive with Republicans in both Senate and gubernatorial contests.

Murkowski and Manchin are two senators to watch on this vote. They could both cross the aisle, cancelling each other out and leading to Haaland’s confirmation.

Rest in Peace, Sister Dianna Ortiz

Her abduction and torture in Guatemala shines a light on U.S. involvement in atrocities in the name of fighting the Cold War.

I went to bed with a heavy heart last night after learning that Sister Dianna Ortiz died on Friday from cancer at the age of 62. Her story is one that every American should know.

In 1987, at the age of 29, Ortiz went to a remote village in the Guatemalan highlands to teach Mayan children to read. Two years later, she was abducted by police officers who took her to a secret prison at a police academy in Guatemala City where she was repeatedly gang-raped and brutally tortured. You can read Ortiz’s account of what happened here, but be warned, it is more horrific than you can imagine.

Unlike the thousands of Guatemalans that “disappeared” back then, Ortiz lived to tell her story.

As a U.S. citizen, I had another advantage: I could, in relative safety, reveal afterwards the details of what happened to me in those twenty-four hours. One of those details: an American was in charge of my torturers.

I remember the moment he removed my blindfold. I asked him, “Are you an American?” In poor Spanish and with a heavy American accent, he answered me with a question: “Why do you want to know?” Moments before, after the torturers had blindfolded me again and were getting ready to rape me again, they had called out in Spanish: “Hey, Alejandro, come and have some fun!”

And a voice had responded “Shit!” in perfect American English with no trace of an accent. It was the voice of the tall, fair-skinned man beside me. After swearing, he’d switched to a halting Spanish. “Idiots!” he said. “She’s a North American nun.” He added that my disappearance had been made public, and he ran them out of the room.

Ortiz was never able to prove that the man in charge of her torturers was an American. But from what we know about U.S. history in Guatemala, her story is plausible.

We have to go back to 1951, when Jacobo Arbenz became the second democratically elected president of Guatemala. He initiated land reforms which granted property to landless peasants. That didn’t sit well with the United Fruit Company, which had close ties to Eisenhower’s White House. Under the guise of fighting communism, the United States planned and funded a coup, installing Carlos Castillo Armas as the military dictator. He was followed by a series of right-wing military dictators backed by the U.S., setting up a civil war in Guatemala that lasted from 1960 to 1996. The results were horrific.

With the 1996 signing of a peace accord between the Guatemalan military and leftist guerrillas, the Latin American Cold War finally came to an end – in the same place it had begun – making Guatemala’s the longest and most lethal of the hemisphere’s civil wars. Some 200,000 men, women and children were dead, virtually all at the hands of the military: more than were killed in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua and El Salvador combined.

One of those dictators was Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt. In 2013, a Guatemalan court found him guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. Here is how Corey Robin described what was going on in 1982.

On 5 December 1982, Ronald Reagan met the Guatemalan president, Efraín Ríos Montt, in Honduras. It was a useful meeting for Reagan. ‘Well, I learned a lot,’ he told reporters on Air Force One. ‘You’d be surprised. They’re all individual countries.’ It was also a useful meeting for Ríos Montt. Reagan declared him ‘a man of great personal integrity . . . totally dedicated to democracy’, and claimed that the Guatemalan strongman was getting ‘a bum rap’ from human rights organisations for his military’s campaign against leftist guerrillas. The next day, one of Guatemala’s elite platoons entered a jungle village called Las Dos Erres and killed 162 of its inhabitants, 67 of them children. Soldiers grabbed babies and toddlers by their legs, swung them in the air, and smashed their heads against a wall. Older children and adults were forced to kneel at the edge of a well, where a single blow from a sledgehammer sent them plummeting below. The platoon then raped a selection of women and girls it had saved for last, pummelling their stomachs in order to force the pregnant among them to miscarry. They tossed the women into the well and filled it with dirt, burying an unlucky few alive. The only traces of the bodies later visitors would find were blood on the walls and placentas and umbilical cords on the ground.

That is why, when I read that Rep. Jamie Raskin was giving speeches to denounce Reagan’s involvement in Latin America while he was a student at Harvard, I knew that his roots as a progressive ran deep. But Reagan wasn’t just slapping Montt on the back and calling him a good guy, he was sending millions of dollars to Guatemala to support the military that was committing these atrocities. But thanks to Sister Dianna Ortiz, we know it was much worse than that. Here’s how she describes part of her ongoing search for justice.

In 1996, I held a five-week vigil before the White House, asking for the declassification of all U.S. government documents related to human rights abuses in Guatemala since 1954, including documents on my own case. A few days into my vigil, I was granted a meeting with First Lady Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton admitted what no other U.S. government official had dared to concede during my seven-year search for the truth behind my abduction and torture in Guatemala: she said it was possible that the American in charge of my Guatemalan torturers was a “past or present employee of a U.S. agency.”

One of the most significant, but unheralded accomplishments of the Clinton administration was the declassification of thousands of documents related to the involvement of the CIA and military intelligence in Latin America during the Cold War. Here’s some of what we learned:

U.S. Army intelligence manuals used to train Latin American military officers at an Army school from 1982 to 1991 advocated executions, torture, blackmail and other forms of coercion against insurgents, Pentagon documents released yesterday show.

Used in courses at the U.S. Army’s School of the Americas, the manual says that to recruit and control informants, counterintelligence agents could use “fear, payment of bounties for enemy dead, beatings, false imprisonment, executions and the use of truth serum,” according to a secret Defense Department summary of the manuals compiled during a 1992 investigation of the instructional material and also released yesterday.

The Army School of the Americas, long located in Panama by moved in 1984 to Fort Benning, Ga., has trained nearly 60,000 military and police officers from Latin America and the United States since 1946.

Its graduates have included some of the region’s most notorious human rights abusers, among them Roberto D’Aubuisson, the leader of El Salvador’s right-wing death squads; 19 Salvadoran soldiers linked to the 1989 assassination of six Jesuit priests; Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, the deposed Panamanian strongman; six Peruvian officers linked to killings of students and a professor; and Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, a Guatemalan officer implicated in the death of an American innkeeper living in Guatemala and to the death of a leftist guerrilla married to an American lawyer.

Years later it was Yale history professor Greg Grandin who connected the dots between George W. Bush’s “war on terror” and these activities in Latin America.

In fact, it was in Latin America that the CIA and U.S. military intelligence agents, working closely with local allies, first helped put into place the unholy trinity of government-sponsored terrorism now on display in Iraq and elsewhere: death squads, disappearances and torture.

It’s also worth noting that the torture of Sister Ortiz happened on George H.W. Bush’s watch, the president who had previously served as CIA director. Here’s how she described the response of the U.S. embassy in Guatemala at the time.

Only one week after my abduction, before any true investigation had been conducted, the U.S. ambassador suggested that I was a political strategist and had staged my own kidnapping to secure a cutoff of U.S. military aid to Guatemala.

Two months later, after a U.S. doctor had counted 111 cigarette burns on my back alone, the story changed. In January 1990, the Guatemalan defense minister publicly announced that I was a lesbian and had staged my abduction to cover up a tryst. The minister of the interior echoed this statement and then said he had heard it first from the U.S. embassy. According to a congressional aide, the political affairs officer at the U.S. embassy, Lew Anselem, was indeed spreading the same rumor.

In the presence of Ambassador Thomas Stroock, this same human rights officer told a delegation of religious men and women concerned about my case that he was “tired of these lesbian nuns coming down to Guatemala.” The story would undergo other permutations. According to the Guatemalan press, the ambassador came up with another version: he told the Guatemalan defense minister that I was not abducted and tortured but simply “had problems with [my] nerves.”

Ortiz spent the rest of her life not only seeking justice, but working with other victims of torture to find a modicum of healing. I’ve watched a few videos of her telling this story and her pain in relating these events years later remained absolutely palpable.

That is why I love the picture of her up above. Looking at it I can imagine that, perhaps in her death, Sister Dianna might have finally found some peace. At least…that is my hope.