Tortured

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Never for a moment in my life have I been “in love.”  I do not believe in the notion.  Fireworks have not filled my heart.  Flames of a fiery passion do not burn within me.  Indeed, my soul has not been ablaze.  Thoughts of a hot-blooded devotion seem illogical to me.  Such sentiments always have.  Fondness too fertile is but torture for me.  I admire many, and adore none.  For me, the affection I feel for another is born out of sincere and profound appreciation.  To like another means more to me than to love or be loved.  Excitement, an emotional reaction to another, rises up within me when I experience an empathetic exchange with someone who has glorious gray matter.

Today, it happened.  I felt an a twinge that startled me.  I stood still as he entered the room.  I expected nothing out of the ordinary, or at least nothing other than what has become his recently adopted, more avoidant, routine.  Although long ago, I had become accustomed to his face, his voice, and his demeanor, for I have known the man for more than a few years.  In the last few weeks, while essentially he is who he always was, some of his stances have changed.  Possibly, Barry has felt a need to compromise his positions, but I wonder; what of his principles.

Early on, I knew that he and I differed in some respects.  While we each loathe drama, I was never certain if he felt as I do; love need not be a tortuous trauma.  Barry spoke of the need to work together.  Yet, not necessarily in aspect of life.  At times, he advocated aggressive actions I could not consider.  This, for me, caused much confusion.  Nonetheless, I liked the man I saw before me.

I recall the day we first met, face-to-face.  We shook hands.  He smiled.  Barry was polite, not pushy.  Amiable is the way I would describe him.  Then, the second time we saw each other, we had a more extensive conversation.  He took my hand in his.  We each spoke with greater sincerity.  As Barry and I chatted, he looked me straight in the eye.  He listened to my personal tale.  Visibly, he pondered the story I shared.  Barry responded so genuinely to my inquiry, albeit an unconventional concern, I was surprised.  Indeed, I was impressed, although less than I was when I read what he had written.

His books moved me.  The more autobiographical tome endeared him to me.  His notes on hope did not lack the spirit to inspire me.  As one who “loves” to learn, which differs from the impulsive idea that I might be “in love,” a person that can kindle my earnest thirst for knowledge truly electrifies me.  I recall the moment I read the text that, all these years later, still resonates within me.  Barry humbly offered, in a discussion of empathy . . .

It is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule – not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else’s shoes and see through their eyes.

Barry told tales of his mother, his grandfather, and how through his interactions with each he realized there is reason to think “about the struggles and disappointments” others have seen in their lives.  Reflection helped the younger Barry understand, every individual is not solely right or wrong.  If he were to insist that, his way was the only approach that worked, “without regard to his [or her] feelings or needs, I was in some way diminishing myself.”  Such awareness, such a superior soul; Barry showed what I believe to be a human’s greatest strength, vulnerability.  Were I to have a heart to win, the words of this gentle-man could have surely swept me off my feet.

Even his calm demeanor is as I desire and live.  Those close to me wonder of my own emotional tranquility.  From his manner and manuscript, it would seem Barry believes as I do.  Empathy elicits equilibrium.  Today, he seemed to embrace this notion once again.  We can choose to love our neighbors.  We need not torture “those who are different from us.”

Near noon, on April 23, 2009, at the Holocaust days of Remembrance Ceremony, Barry, the now President of the United States, Barack Obama spoke of this belief again.  Once more, I felt a pang for the person who oft-expressed a profound connection to the feelings of another.  The sweet soul who can bring me to tears, did so once again.  On this historic occasion, Barry shared a profound realization through a personal story.  The subject; the Holocaust and the torture our forebears felt or beheld.

In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable.  My own great uncle returned from his service in World War II in a state of shock, saying little, alone with painful memories that would not leave his head.  He went up into the attic, according to the stories that I’ve heard, and wouldn’t come down for six months.  He was one of the liberators — someone who at a very tender age had seen the unimaginable.  And so some of the liberators who are here today honor us with their presence — all of whom we honor for their extraordinary service.  My great uncle was part of the 89th Infantry Division — the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp.  And they liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, where tens of thousands had perished.

Stunned, by the saga, and the words that preceded the legend, I began to believe again.  Perhaps the Barry I admire had a change of heart.  Policies he never fully embraced, might not seem reasonable to him now.

During the campaign, Barry, Senator Barack Obama only promised to investigate, not to prosecute.  Many months ago, before the August 2008 declaration, and thereafter, I had thought his stance reflected his vast ability to empathize.  Yet, in the light of the ample evidence, most if not all of which affirms the Bush Administration engaged in extreme methods of interrogation, President Obama still supports or chooses to sustain a position that negates empathy for the victims.  I shudder to think of how the Seventh Generation might be affected.

Hence, I am left to question what I thought was truth.  Was the empathy I envisioned not as sincere as I hoped it to be?  Perchance that is why, for me, love is as torture.  I have faith no one has the power to disappoint me.  Only my choices can be a source of much concern.  For as long as I can recall, I have observed, once infatuation fades, we learn as I had before Barry entered the Oval Office.  He is but another human.  He embraces and then forgets, the power of empathy and the force of our past?

When, in homage to Holocaust victims, and survivors of a heinous hostility that forever stains world history, I sensed he knew.  As I looked on, I forgot the setting.  Intent on the torrent of news on torture techniques I read and heard throughout the day, I made an erroneous connection.  As Barry, President Obama spoke of the deeds done in decades past, and those crimes committed by the previous Administration, I imagined the man I thought I knew meant to express empathy for those who suffered at the hands of Americans.  The Chief Executive, on behalf of the United States avowed.

Their legacy is our inheritance.  And the question is, how do we honor and preserve it?  How do we ensure that “never again” isn’t an empty slogan, or merely an aspiration, but also a call to action?

I believe we start by doing what we are doing today — by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil’s greatest co-conspirator.

In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable.

I cried.  Tremendously thankful for the oratory, indeed, I must say, for a second, I was elated.  I wondered.  Had the person many think beloved, the individual I at least treasure, decided to rescind his prior position?

Might he have rejected the thought offered recently; “nothing will be gained by our time and energy laying blame for the past,”  

Could it be the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony helped the President to renew his faith in his earlier expression;  “(H)istory returns “with a vengeance . . . “(A)s Faulkner reminds us, the past is never dead and buried — it isn’t even past.”  I hoped.

Perchance, he had worked through a struggle I too experience.  As one who has no desire to hurt others, even those who have physically and psychologically harmed individuals, and our country’s image, how might I think prosecution is just?  

I truly embrace such an honorable ability to seek no retribution.  Indeed, I may not fall “in love”; nonetheless, I would hope to live love.  

I feel harsh reprisals are never wise.  I also accept the enduring wisdom of a finer balance.  I have experienced the need to empathize and the conflict of what I might do if one I treasure intentionally injures another.  I have come to discover, if deleterious deeds are allowed to stand, sooner or later the other, I, and perchance, society will be subjected to adulterations that individuals or a culture cannot endure.

Awful actions we accept, avoid, or merely do not acknowledge become a foundation for the future.  Humans inure.  Lest we forget the Milgram shock experiment of decades ago, or the knowledge that when repeated in the present, proves again, as a Psychologist, Thomas Blass, espoused in  “The Man Who Shocked the World.” Milgram extrapolated, to larger events like the Holocaust, or Abu Ghraib.  “people can act destructively without coercion.”  “In things like interrogations, we don’t know the complexities involved.  People are under enormous pressure to produce results.”  

I wonder how many Americans came to accept violence as a necessity on September 11, 2001.  On that dreadful day, a date that now lives in infamy, all Americans were placed in a precarious position.  With the threat of terror etched into our every cell, each of us had to ask, what were we to do.  In the 2004 edition of Dreams From My Father, the Barry, who I trusted to be so thoughtful whispered his woe for what might occur once the “world fractured.” He penned . . .

This collective history, this past, directly touches my own . . .

I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago’s South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair.  I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder — alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a steady, unthinking application of force, of longer prison sentences and more sophisticated military hardware — is inadequate to the task.  I know that the hardening of lines, the embrace of fundamentalism and tribe, dooms us all.

Those are the words of the Barry I was inspired to meet, the person I was reminded of when he stood with an audience of individuals who never forget the agony of torture.  Today, as that empathetic soul, the President referred to the future, the generations to come, he stated, “We find cause for hope” when “people of every age and faith and background and race (are) united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world.”  I thought of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay prison, and the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the need to empathize with victims of “extreme duress.”

Oblivious to the purpose of this particular speech, in my moment of stupor, I surmised Mister Obama had not only accepted the association, but perhaps had realized what could occur if the transgressions of the previous Administration were allowed to stand as if all was in the past.

“Barry,” Barack, the Commander-In-Chief, further elucidated; “Those [persons] can be our future . . . (D)uring this season when we celebrate liberation, resurrection, and the possibility of redemption, may each of us renew our resolve to do what must be done. And may we strive each day, both individually and as a nation, to be among the righteous.

I imagined the reference was to empathy, to the paradigms I too embrace. Punishment offers no benefits for people.  Yet, there is a need to prosecute the culpable, to ensure that people are answerable for the most atrocious aggressions.  It is vital, if we wish to prevent the numbness that humans so easily adopt, we must bring torture to the full light of day.  Torment executed in our names, I think Barry would agree, hurts us.  Surely, General and President Eisenhower did.  Mister Obama acknowledged this only hours ago .

Eisenhower understood the danger of silence.  He understood that if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet another atrocity — and it would be the perpetrators’ ultimate triumph.

What Eisenhower did to record these crimes for history is what we are doing here today.  That’s what Elie Wiesel and the survivors we honor here do by fighting to make their memories part of our collective memory.  That’s what the Holocaust Museum does every day on our National Mall, the place where we display for the world our triumphs and failures and the lessons we’ve learned from our history.  It’s the very opposite of silence.

But we must also remember that bearing witness is not the end of our obligation — it’s just the beginning.  We know that evil has yet to run its course on Earth.  We’ve seen it in this century in the mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground, and children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war.

Barry knows what President Obama. spoke of in his address at the Holocaust Day of Remembrance Ceremony  Love needed not be tortured.  Expressions of fondness are found in empathy, not extreme duress.

President Eisenhower understood as I had hoped, on this day, Barry Obama had.  What occurs far from view is never truly unseen.  Nor can avoidance erase the scars left on a heart. While as a country, or as individuals we may prefer to retreat to the attic as President Obama’s great uncle did, in truth, it is impossible to forget.

People who participated know this to be so. A belatedly brave Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, Ali Soufan, tell his tales of sorrowful love in My Tortured Decision.  The mediator recalls how for seven years he has remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding.  Mister Soufan, as General Eisenhower did before him saw the need to “shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.”

I inquire; what will Barry do, and what of President Obama.  Will the man who once held my hand and professed a need to be empathetic do as he declares his commitment? “(W)e have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to confront these scourges.”  Might he instead do as he hopes we will not, “wrap ourselves in the false comfort that others’ sufferings are not our own,”

I can only hope Barry will encourage the President to heed his own call. “(W)e have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take — whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place . . .”

Let us never forget Guantanamo Bay prison, Abu Ghraib, or any America penitentiary camp, need not be our holocaust.   Tales of tortured love need not be an American truth.

References for tortured love . . .

Mr. Right. Rehnquist, A Racist on Drugs? ©

Belated Prologue . . .
I realize in retrospect I ranted and raged in haste.  I was less reflective than I might have been.  I did not consider how my words might be received.  Thus, I neglected to state a significant point.  Accepted political postures now supplant dictionary definitions.  Back in the day, a conservative was one that conserved.  They did not waste money or energy; nor did they treat life with little care.  Natural resources were of great values to conservatives.  Conservatives retained worthy traditions.  Conservatives were cautious. 

Currently, when we speak of conservatism, we equate the term with theories such as “trickle down economics.”  We think of those that allow for trillions of dollars in debt.  Conservatives believe fighting terrorism in a protracted war that cost billions of dollars each week is best.  It is conservatives that flippantly send our troops to battle; thus, endangering their lives.  William H. Rehnquist was considered Chief among conservatives.

The story . . . This treatise may be more of a personal rant.  I typically present, or attempt to offer facts, figures, and a hint of my own individual reflection.  However, in this moment I am just shocked, stunned, and perhaps aghast.  I was late to the news of the day.  I listened as I prepared my dinner.  I heard the teaser, ‘Former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist had a serious drug problem.’  I feel a personal connection with the Justice since I learned of our shared history.  I do not necessarily admire the man.  Still, upon hearing this news, I [mistakenly] gave the former Chief Justice the benefit of the doubt.

I thought to myself, ‘Rehnquist must have been on drugs when he selected the Bush.’  His self-induced stupor explains his decision.  How could anyone in their right” mind anoint George W. Bush, President of the United States.  Other stories aired before the substance of the report was revealed.  I continued to ponder the possibilities.  With no information, I concluded Rehnquist must have acquired the addiction late in life, perhaps, during his bout with thyroid cancer.  That illness affected him years before his passing.  His health was poor.  Perchance the pain was too great, particularly considering his age.

Nevertheless, though I had concluded in my own mind what must have been, I decided I needed to know immediately, when did the addiction occur.  How serious was it?  I quickly ran to the computer and read.  I discovered my initial impression was Wrong!

Rehnquist Drug Dependency Detailed
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 4, 2007 Filed at 5:48 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — A physician at the U.S. Capitol prescribed a powerful sleep aid for William Rehnquist for nearly a decade while he was an associate justice of the Supreme Court, according to newly released FBI records.

The records present a picture of a justice with chronic back pain who for many months took three times the recommended dosage of the drug Placidyl and then went into withdrawal in 1981 when he abruptly stopped taking it.

Rehnquist checked himself into George Washington University Hospital, where he tried to escape in his pajamas and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him, the records indicate.

Although Rehnquist’s drug dependency was publicly known around the time he was hospitalized in 1981, the release of the FBI records provides new details.

The justice was weaned off Placidyl in early 1982 in a detoxification process that took a month, according to the records.  The hospital doctor who treated Rehnquist said the Capitol Hill physician who prescribed Placidyl for Rehnquist was practicing bad medicine, bordering on malpractice.  Both doctors’ names were deleted from the documents before they were released.

The FBI documents were prepared in 1986 when Rehnquist — who began serving on the court on Jan. 7, 1972 — was nominated for chief justice, years after his problems with the drug had ended.

A psychiatrist told the FBI that Rehnquist’s family in 1981 noted ”long-standing slurred speech which seems to coincide with administration of Placidyl,” one FBI interview report stated.  The psychiatrist also indicated that Rehnquist’s chronic back pain led to his heavy use of such substances as Darvon and Tylenol 3, which the psychiatrist said also played a part in Rehnquist’s condition.

An attending physician at the U.S. Capitol detailed Rehnquist’s problems with Placidyl for the FBI, saying that prior to his seeing the justice in 1972, Rehnquist was prescribed the drug by another doctor for relief from insomnia.  The attending physician told the FBI he continued to prescribe Placidyl for the entire 10-year period that he treated Rehnquist.

The physician said that Rehnquist had been prescribed 500 milligrams of Placidyl per evening, but that Rehnquist was actually taking 1,500 milligrams each night.  The doctor said this increased consumption may have coincided with Mrs. Rehnquist’s illness and treatment for cancer.

Rehnquist had told the physician that he was taking one pill before going to bed and he would take other pills if he awakened during the night.

The physician indicated that he decided to discontinue the drug’s use and to try another medication.  Rehnquist said the new medication was not strong enough, an FBI interview report stated.  The physician said he then prescribed a substitute and then another, at which point Rehnquist went into the hospital.

The hospital doctor who successfully weaned Rehnquist from the drug told the FBI that the toxicity of Placidyl causes blurred vision, slurred speech, and difficulty in making physical movements.  Once a patient stops taking the drug, the withdrawal symptoms of delirium begin, which is what happened to Rehnquist at the hospital.

The doctor who helped Rehnquist get off the drug said the justice’s wife was highly upset and felt that the prescribing physician and the pharmacist who filled the prescription were probably intimidated by such high-ranking officials as Supreme Court justices and senators and probably would have agreed to almost any request.

Dumbfounded, I wanted to know more.  I searched further.  I found

Though his name was blacked out, Dr. Freeman Cary, then the attending physician of the Capitol — whose services are also available to Supreme Court justices — told agents that he began prescribing Placidyl to Rehnquist in 1972 for insomnia and continued to do so until the 1981 episode.  For six or seven months before Rehnquist’s hospitalization in 1981, Cary indicated, Rehnquist was re-filling three-month prescriptions for Placidyl every month — suggesting he was taking close to 1,500 milligrams daily instead of 500.

When Rehnquist went into George Washington University Hospital in December 1981, he was seeking relief for his back but, according to some of the physicians interviewed, also knew he had a drug problem.  Rehnquist’s episode with delusions came when doctors ended his Placidyl.  Doctors then resumed his high dosage to wean him off the drug slowly, reducing gradually until he stopped taking the drug altogether in February 1982.  At that point, doctors said Rehnquist was cured of his dependence.

By this time my head was reeling.  I returned to the kitchen and listened to Cable News Network reports as I cooked.  I discovered not only was the conservative justice doing drugs extensively long before becoming Chief Justice, he was acting out his racist views, though he denied this!  Perchance there is more to be exposed; however, for decades administrations have actively worked to conceal the truth about Judge William Rehnquist.

The FBI on Wednesday released 1,561 pages of documents on Rehnquist to news organizations and scholars in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act following Rehnquist’s death in September 2005  An additional 207 pages were withheld under the federal disclosure law, and the FBI said an entire section of his file could not be found.

Much of the FBI’s file on Rehnquist appears to have been compiled almost exclusively for his two Senate confirmations — his initial nomination to the court by President Nixon in 1971 and his nomination as chief justice by President Reagan in 1986.  Administration officials apparently hoped to prevent any surprises from sinking his nominations.

In 1971, Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst directed the FBI to conduct investigations of witnesses who were planning to testify at a Senate hearing against Rehnquist’s confirmation.

Fifteen years later, during the Reagan administration, the FBI was enlisted to conduct background checks on witnesses who were scheduled to testify against Rehnquist’s nomination to become chief justice.

The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986 when Rehnquist was nominated to be chief justice.  John Bolton, who resigned in December as President Bush’s U.N. ambassador, was an assistant attorney general under Reagan.

“Thurmond just gave these names to Bolton they will testify for the Democrats and we want to know what they are going to say,” a Justice Department official told a counterpart at the FBI, according to a memo in Rehnquist’s file.

Alexander Charns, a Durham, North Carolina, lawyer who received the file and has extensively researched the FBI’s relationship with the court, said the new disclosures show the Nixon and Reagan administrations went to some lengths to discredit Rehnquist opponents.

The file also indicates the two administrations enlisted the FBI’s help in blunting criticism of him during confirmation hearings.

“In many ways, I guess it’s the same old story of the political use of the FBI,” Charns said.

The documents show that the FBI was aware in 1971 that Rehnquist had owned a home in Phoenix with a deed that allowed him to sell only to whites.  The restrictive covenant was not disclosed until his 1986 confirmation hearings, at which Rehnquist said he became aware of the clause only days earlier.

Oh, please!  A learned scholar, an expert in law only learned of the clause days before his hearing.

I must admit my fascination with Chief Justice Rehnquist goes beyond the fray.  The fact that he selected George W. Bush for President without cause is reason enough for pause; however, my interest in the man is much more is personal.

Many years ago, I was teaching a political science class.  We were reading a biography of the Chief Justice and I noticed he was born and raised in Milwaukee Wisconsin.  Although  the city is not my place of birth, it is the city I consider my hometown.  I may have physically left Wisconsin long ago; still, my heart remains there.

After reading this factoid, I merrily went off to the library.  I was curious.  Did Rehnquist reside in my neighborhood?  He did!  I lived in a very small village outside of Milwaukee.  Apparently, so did William Rehnquist.  I surmised he likely went to Marquette High School, an exclusive institution.  Much to my surprise, the chief Justice is a graduate of my same small school!  We are fellow alums!

My political philosophies are considered extremely liberal; his were radically “right.”  I marvel at the dichotomy one system can produce.  My high school graduated many notables and it seems politically they cover the spectrum.  This is likely true of many educational facilities.  This detail is not extraordinary.

What I do find remarkable is that though I am a liberal, my lifestyle has always been exceedingly “conservative” perhaps more so than those claiming to be cautious.  I never did drugs, not in my youth or as an adult.  I, as Chief Justice Rehnquist suffered a back injury.  Prescription drugs were offered.  I shied away from these.  I was always concerned; a possible addiction was in the forefront of my mind.  The idea of taking three times the dosage as Rehnquist did was and remains unthinkable to me.  Were I to somehow find myself in that circumstance, I would seek help, not hide the truth.

Once I regained my sense and given up the addiction I would speak of it openly in hopes of helping others.  I have done this repeatedly.  I discuss my earlier food affliction often.  Fortunately, actually, purposely, in choosing my dependence, I consciously considered the fact that food would not distort my thinking.  Inhaling meals did not impair my speech or other mannerisms.  My ability to judge remained intact.  Interestingly, even as I binged and purged, I thought about what I was doing.  Constantly, I reflected on how could I stop.  I am told and read that drugs and alcohol allow an individual to escape reality; food does not offer that same opportunity.

I have had physical pain, and I did not wish to feel it.  I had kidney stones, many.  The ache of that was excruciating.  I did take a few Vicodin, though I never developed a dependency.  I always worked to take as few pills as possible.  Rarely have I emptied a bottle.  Typically, I trash prescription drugs. 

When seriously injured I will fill a doctor’s recommendation, take medication for days, then purposely stop!  I save the tablets for years, just in case.  Then, ultimately, I clean out my “stash.”

I am so sensitive to the distorted view drugs provide, I avoid them like a plaque!  At my current ripe old age, I have yet to imbibe an alcoholic beverage.  Living in a town once known for its beer, this may be unusual.

When I reflect on the possible purported racism exhibited by William Rehnquist, I once again draw a parallel.  While in middle school I marched in my first protest march.  The issue was civil rights.  Was the Chief Justice among the marchers?  Catholic priest Father Groppi, a well-known activist organized citizens in our local community.  Years later, while living in California, Father Groppi passed.  The man was apparently nationally prominent.  Even in southern California, there were reports of Groppi’s death.

Milwaukee was not a backward city.  It was bustling, perhaps more so years ago when a younger William was there, than it is now.  Relatively speaking, years ago, Milwaukee was considered a larger city.

A tale heard years ago leads me to believe it is still a city of activists or at least the Village of Shorewood is.  I returned for a high school reunion.  Attendees were given the option to tour the campus.  I took it.  My favorite Social Science instructor led the group.  The teacher mentioned that the high school initiated a program that honors famous graduates. 

William Rehnquist was scheduled to arrive the week of September 11, 2001.  For obvious reasons, the event was rescheduled.  He appeared months later, and was greeted by a throng of protesters.  Much of the student body turned out.  Oh, if I had known, I would have been there with bells on.

I wonder; if the nation had known the Rehnquist record during the senate hearings, would we have witnessed more demonstrations?

I speculate.  What is yet to be revealed?  Hundreds of pages were held back?  Alexander Charns, the recipient of the FRI file wonders as well.

Charns said some of the censored documents provide intriguing hints of what else Rehnquist’s file might contain.

In one previously secret memo from 1971, an FBI official wrote, “No persons interviewed during our current or 1969 investigation furnished information bearing adversely on Rehnquist’s morals or professional integrity; however …” The next third of the page is blacked out, under the disclosure law’s exception for matters of national security.

“It would be nice to know what is still classified, three decades later,” Charns said.

I cannot begin to imagine.  However, if my experience earlier this evening is a predictor, I trust that the revelation would be worse than I thought possible. 

They say liberals are loose and act with little forethought.  Perchance, an accurate judgment cannot be made based political party affiliations.  What people do speaks volumes?

Hmmm, might we ponder the practices of other conservatives, Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh.  Wow!

Rehnquist realized . . .

  • Rehnquist Drug Dependency Detailed.  By The Associated Press.  New York Times.  January 4, 2007
  • Rehnquist Drug Dependency Detailed.  By The Associated Press.  New York Times.  January 4, 2007
  • Milestones.  Time Magazine. Monday, November 8, 2004
  • Rehnquist FBI File Sheds New Light on Drug Dependence, Confirmation Battles.  By Tony Mauro.
      Legal Times. January 4, 2007
  • FBI: Rehnquist withdrew from painkillers.  Cable Network News.  January 4, 2007
  • Rehnquist Drug Dependency Detailed, By Pete Yost.  Associated Press. January 4, 2007
  • Chief Justice Rehnquist has died.  Cable News Network. Sunday, September 4, 2005
  • Civil Rights. Milwaukee’s Historical Timeline.
  • Bennett under fire for remarks on blacks, crime.  Cable News Network. Friday, September 30, 2005
  • Limbaugh admits addiction to pain medication.  Cable News Network. Friday, October 10, 2003

    Technorati Tags