Radicalization Report Gone Unheeded, Oprah Pulls A Palin, Killings At The Canal: The Army Tapes Part Three, & Controversy In A Wal-Mart

Hi everyone. We begin tonight with the news that Defense Secretary Gates has ordered a review of military policies and the events leading up to Nidal Hassan's massacre of soldiers at Fort Hood. But CNN has learned that the Defense Department contacted independent cyberterrorism analyst Shannen Rossmiller before the Hasan shooting ever occurred, in order to look at how the military deals with procedures related to possible radicalism in their ranks. If fact, Rossmiller completed a report in April 2008 entitled "The Radicalization of Members Within DOD," which sounds a lot like what Gates is ordering now. Shades of Hurricane Pam.

For discussion of this, we're joined by Rossmiller herself, as well as Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. It's a pretty good discussion. Rossmiller explains the report a bit and notes that to her understanding, it was received by the intelligence community in the Defense Department. They also talk profiling and though admittedly Hoekstra sounds relatively reasonable, I can't help but see irony in his advocation that we learn from the Europeans regarding how to deal with home grown radicals. Think he wants us to learn about their law and order approach too? Yeah, not so much.

Transitioning to the news that--ZOMG!!!--Oprah is quitting. In two years. And...she's going to have her own cable network, so everybody can just unclench, okay? She's not leaving us. I thought Twitter was going to have a heart attack when the news broke. It's going to be okay, people. In a Tom Foreman piece, we get an abbreviated Oprah biography. You know the drill: media empire, weight issues, book club, and YOU GET A CAR! If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that I don't exactly buy into the Oprah hype, but that doesn't mean I don't like her. She's definitely done much more good for this world than bad, and I'll admit to watching on many an occasion.

It's just that Oprah has a tendency to make everything about, well, Oprah. Take James Frey. Did Oprah eviscerate him in front of millions of people in defense of truth? No, she did it because she felt personally slighted and had to do damage control to her reputation. If she was really all about the truth, that Sarah Palin interview would have been a hell of a lot tougher. (By the way, I bet this story bumped our nightly Palin coverage, so, uh, thanks Oprah.) Anyway, after Tom's piece, Anderson Cooper talks to Ryan Seacrest by phone, which just makes me laugh. I dunno, something about Ryan's whole existence makes me laugh. But, uh yeah, there's nothing of note here. Well, except Ryan reminding me that Oprah also unleashed Dr. Phil on us. Not her best moment in my book.

On now to part three of the investigative series "Killings at the Canal: The Army Tapes" with correspondent Abbie Boudreau. Tonight we learn how, after nine months of secrecy, the execution style murder of four Iraqis by U.S. soldiers was finally revealed. As reported previously, 13 men were on the mission that day that led to three sergeants committing murder. All 13 were questioned and interrogators found themselves up against a very strong brotherhood loyalty. But finally Jess Cunningham, now a former army sergeant, broke the silence. He insists he did the right thing.

David Court, attorney of First Sergeant John Hadley who is now serving time at Fort Leavenworth for the crime, doesn't find Cunningham's reveal to be exactly a noble act. In fact, at the time he came forward, Cunningham was facing disciplinary charges for assaulting Sergeant Michael Leahy, another soldier convicted in the murders. He has received immunity for testifying and is no longer in the Army. So in terms of viewing the case, that complicates things a bit. After the piece, Abbie tell us that Cunningham has been treated pretty badly since coming forward. Called a rat, property vandalized, things like that. It's sad. Ultimately he did the right thing, though perhaps not for the right reasons.

For discussion, we're joined by Army captain and Iraq war veteran Pete Hegseth, and Eugene Fidell, a military law attorney. They begin by talking about the whole 'band of brothers' thing and the extremely strong loyalty that soldiers have for one another. From Pete: "I don't think it's accurate to say that that band of brothers needs to extend to covering up war crimes that happen." And Eugene notes that when it comes to war crimes, there is an obligation to both report and investigate them. The panel then moves on to Cunningham's excuse that fear for his own safety prevented him from coming forward sooner. Pete agrees there's most likely truth there. I'm sure there is, and the fear is legitimate. Just ask Joe Darby or Justin Watt (old school 360 blog!).

Anderson asks about the validity of the argument that the men were simply trying to avoid having to release Iraqis who they believed had killed Americans and would do so again. Eugene thinks that kind of action is insubordination. Pete "completely disagrees," explaining the previously reported difficulties with keeping detainees locked up. But if you listen to the nuances, I'm not sure he's really disagreeing at all, but rather making sure a problem is acknowledged. Anderson sums it up nicely: "What you're saying is that's an argument for changing the ground rules in terms of what evidence is needed or how evidence is gathered against detainees. It's not an excuse for murder."

Transitioning to a Gary Tuchman piece on a racially charged controversy in Kennett, Missouri. I've missed some of this reporting, so time to play catch-up. When Heather Ellis, an African American, was 21-years-old, she was checking out at a local Wal-Mart, when she decided to switch lines. Customers--all white--accused her of cutting, and she allegedly began using profanity. Police were called and she was ultimately accused of hitting and kicking the officers, all white. Ellis claims they assaulted her. Oh boy. There's a surveillance video, but all it really shows is her pushing other customers' items back at the counter.

Three years later, Ellis is now facing 15 years in prison, which I have to say, regardless of her guilt seems a little extreme. As for that guilt, things aren't looking so great. I'm the first one to be wary about statements from cops, but when you have all those people saying the same thing against you...like I said, doesn't look good. Plus, I think I'm a bit biased by my former retail experience. Because customers? They're craaazeh! This story almost seems tame to me. I mean, I once saw our loss prevention guy get mowed down by a shoplifter fleeing via vehicle, fly over the hood of the car, and then pop back up to continue the chase. Just a regular day in retail. Lesson we can learn from all this? Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

Also? I absolutely loved Gary reading the profanity-laced testimony of the customers (who were quoting Ellis): "One of them was Albert Fisher, who testified, 'She told me I was a stupid mother blanker.' He added, 'She let me know I didn't know who I was blanking with.' And then he says, when he asked her name, she said, 'My name is Donna blanking Duck'" When she said, 'If you try to arrest me, I'll kick your blanking blank,' according to the cop, he arrested her." My blanking blank? Gary! Such language! Oh, my innocent ears...

Next up, we learn that the government panel that issued the new mammogram guidelines did some clarifying today. Except, not really. Because their clarifying sounds suspiciously like what they said before. Help us, Sanjay Gupta, help us. Never fear, the doctor is here. And he recommends still getting mammograms starting at age 40. The Gupta has spoken. Case closed.

The "shot" tonight is done by Tom Foreman because it features Anderson. It seems the Silver Fox and Wolf Blitzer both have cameos in Stephen King's new book. And what better way to commemorate this fact than to have members of the crew do a dramatic reading? I think the last guy deserves an Oscar. As for the actual passages, out of the two anchors mentioned, I find it hilarious that it's the Wolfbot, ahem, "Wolfie," that ends up being the crush object. That Stephen King is never one to go with the pack, is he?

I thought the show was fairly good. Talking to Seacrest seemed a little excessive, but there's no way this show wasn't going to be all over the Oprah story. They love (to report on) her so! Abbie's series continues to be very well done. With tomorrow being Friday, I'm not sure I'll have a full review, but I do plan to blog the final segment and my thoughts. So until we meet again.

Discussion of New Mammogram Recommendations, Killings At The Canal: The Army Tapes, Palin Book Tour Continues, And Hasan Update

Hi everyone. We begin tonight with more focus on those confusing new mammogram guidelines, the general question being: What is up with that? For discussion, we're joined by Dr. Kimberly Gregory, who was a member of the task force that issued the guidelines, and Dr. Daniel Kopans, one of the world's leading experts on mammography screening. Honestly? We don't really get much further than where we were yesterday. Dr. Gregory urges women to talk to their doctors about their own personal risks, while Dr. Kopans states there is no science to support that screening high risk women will save lives. According to him, 75 to 90 percent of women who develop breast cancer are not at increased risk, which makes the guidelines pretty ridiculous.

Dr. Gregory also does some talking about the "net benefit" of screenings and that just makes me think this is about rationing and money. Exactly how many lives need to be saved before a "benefit" is determined? If it's somebody you love, that number is one. The question of whether or not this will affect insurance coverage of screenings is brought up, and Dr. Gregory isn't going to touch that responsibility ball. "We don't make recommendations for insurance coverage," she says. "That's just ignoring what the fallout is going to be," says Dr. Kopans. Exactly. I'm still suspicious as to how this all came about. If there's a story to be uncovered, as they say, follow the money.

Transitioning now to the first segment of Abbie Boudreau's investigative series, "Killings at the Canal: The Army Tapes." CNN was able to obtain 23 1/2 hours of interrogation tapes of three Army sergeants. First Sergeant John Hatley, Sergeant 1st Class Joseph Mayo, and Sergeant Michael Leahy have all been convicted of the execution-style murders of four Iraqis in a canal in Baghdad in March 2007. This story was brought to CNN's attention by Private 1st Class Joshua Hartson, who was there, but not charged with any crime. He believes the convicted men are heroes.

This all came about on a routine mission that was halted when shots were fired. The men subsequently found the four Iraqis--the shooters--along with a haul of weapons. Initially there was nothing out of the ordinary. The Iraqis were blindfolded, zip-tied, and loaded into the vehicle to be dropped off at a detainee housing area. But one of them spoke English, and when Hartson asked him if he had killed Americans, the detainee laughed, which Hartson took as an affirmative. Believing these Iraqis would just be immediately freed to kill again, the men decided to take matters into their own hands. The detainees were then lined up and shot execution style, their bodies left in the canal.

The secret was kept for nine months. I'm guessing its revealing will be covered in forthcoming segments. I'm also imagining that we'll be seeing more of the actual interrogation tapes in the coming days, as this segment pretty much just set the scene. Taking on investigations like this one really is CNN at its best. For some background, you can watch Abbie answer a few questions. I think I'll wait until I've seen the entire series before I fully weigh in, but tonight I'll leave you with something Michael Ware once said. From a profile of him in Men's Journal (emphasis mine):

Of the many stories that haunt Ware when he closes his eyes but can’t sleep, this one singes a little more because he caught it on film and CNN refused to air it: It was spring 2007. He was in Diyala province, in a village north of Baghdad, embedded with a U.S. infantry platoon conducting a sweep for insurgents. By the time they arrived at daybreak, the insurgents had fled. The whole thing looked like a bust, but then there was a shot. An American sniper had seen an armed man running toward the platoon and put a bullet in the back of his skull. The soldiers went to look for him. Was he dead? Was he still a threat? When they found him, alive, they dragged him to a secure area.

“Then, for the next 20 minutes,” Ware remembers, “all of us just stood around and watched this guy’s life slowly ebb away in painful, heaving sobs for air, rendering him absolutely no assistance or aid. If that had been an American soldier, he would have been medevacked out and in 20 minutes would’ve landed on an operating table. Once an enemy combatant comes into your custody, you’re obliged by the Geneva Conventions to render that wounded prisoner all aid. Even I — with my rudimentary medical training, I don’t think his life could’ve been saved — but even I could’ve eased his passing.

“Instead a towel was laid over his face, making his breathing much more labored and painful, the taunts continued, and we just sat around and watched him die.

“And for some bizarre reason, it was just me and this platoon of soldiers, and I was able to see the dispassion of these kids in the way they just watched his life slip away. I was filming and worrying about the best composition of the shot, and I realized that I too was watching just as dispassionately. There’s no blame to be laid here. That guy was a legitimate target who was rightfully shot in the head. But it made me realize, just once more, that this kind of dehumanization is what happens when we send our children to war.”

Following Abbie's piece, we're joined by former Air Force attorney Scott Silliman and former Army Staff Sergeant David Bellavia, who fought in the Battle of Fallujah. While Scott notes that what the soldiers did violates the law and Geneva Conventions, much of the discussion is focused on what David describes as a "catch-and-release program for terrorists." Abbie explains how incredibly hard it was to obtain enough evidence to hold detainees, which confuses me a little, since I've read so much about Iraqis being scooped up just willy nilly. But it's implied that the policy changed following Abu Ghraib, so maybe that's the discrepancy. Wouldn't it be nice if these kind of intricacies got the same level of coverage as, say, balloon boy? Anyway, good discussion.

Transitioning now to the continuing Sarah Palin press tour. Next stop: Barbara WaWa! Oh 360, why you gotta do me like this? Going so strong and then...Palin. Le sigh. So anyway, for those keeping score at home, the former Veep candidate is asked about Obama and the word "dithering" comes up. Twice! Anderson Cooper explains that the interview was because Palin has a new book out, "In case you haven't heard about it..." Yes, I've heard about it. Because you won't let me not hear about it! Damn you, Silver Fox! Damn your piercing blue eyes and...wait, what was I saying?

So anyhoo! Tom Foreman is back to do some more fact-checking, but I don't really even care. Palin has even sucked away my enthusiasm for facts! One thing that's kinda funny though, is that she's been caught in a contradiction (two dueling soundbites) about the occurrence of a "family vote" regarding deciding to run for Veep. She's now lying about things that no one cares about, and which could never have been disputed in the first place. Good lord. Also? Tom sorta throws Katie Couric under the bus when he states that Palin is right when she claims Couric went easier on Biden. The evidence? Gaffe-tastic Joe claimed Roosevelt went on TV when TV didn't exist. That doesn't necessary mean she went easier, but it is a MAJOR case of follow-up fail.

For discussion of Palin (oh yes), we're joined by Bill Bennett and Donna Brazile. Says Anderson Cooper: "Sarah Palin has obviously gotten a huge amount of attention. The A.P. devoted a lot of time to fact checking it. We've done fact checks, as well. Is that fair?" WTF kind of question is that? Yeah media, cut it out with your unfair fact-checking and information gathering! C'mon, is there not some kid in a flying object you could be telling me about right now? To be fair to our anchor, I think (hope) he was talking more about the amount of attention Palin is getting. But um, she's courting it. She has a book to sell. So...yeah. Good rule of thumb? Fact-checking is always good. Erm, unless you're talking about a comedy skit. But what kind of network would do something idiotic like that? Oh, wait...

Moving on (yeah, I'm done with Palin) to an update on the case of the Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hasan. Apparently, he was trying to get some of the soldiers he counseled investigated for war crimes. To talk about this, we're joined by Eugene Fidel, a military law attorney and president of the National Institute of Military Justice. Anderson is really focused on doctor-patient confidentiality, but Eugene believes there's a plausible argument Hasan was "under obligation to report" possible crimes. A war crime is a very, very serious thing. Though many soldiers kill and witness killing; that's not the same thing as being involved in a war crime. A war crime is wrong and punishable--hence the crime part. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

First it was snakes on a plane. Now the "shot" tonight? Goats on a bus. Then they whip out the infamous "bear on a trampoline" video. Just cuz. "Don't you love having bears on the trampoline video, just standing by? Do we have the "who the hell is Wolf" standing by?" asks Anderson. Hey, where's the love for Seaman Ship these days? Also? Earlier in the show, there was a story related to Facebook that allowed Anderson to display his technological cluelessness. He goes back to the subject now: "And by the way, I do know that I have many friends on Facebook. I just don't have friends in real life." Awww. I will be your friend, Anderson! We can play Scrabble. Good times will be had.

The show wasn't too bad. Much of the awesomeness obviously coming from Abbie's excellent report. I'm wondering how much more Palin we've got in store for us. The media's obsession with her is crazeh! By the time 2012 rolls around her career could be completely dead. I mean, remember Fred Thompson? I wish they'd take a pill. I'll give Palin the Newsweek cover though. That was pretty uncool. Anyway, until tomorrow.

Sarah Palin Again Makes Headlines, Congressional Crooks, New Mammogram Recommendations, And Stupak Amendment Discussion

Hi everyone. Happy New Week! And oh what a new week it is. Hide your wolves, people. Because the Quitta from Wasilla? She's baaaaacck! Back in the headlines, anyway. It seems Sarah Palin wrote a book. And I use the word "wrote" in the loosest way possible. But anyway, mediagasm! The former governor's first stop at pimping out that fine piece of literature? None other than Oprah Winfrey herself. Let's see, one of 360's obsessions being interviewed by another of 360's obsessions. You think we'll have discussion of this? You betcha!

We begin with a piece from Candy Crowley that lays down the background. We know the basic rub here, right? Though adored by conservatives, the majority of Americans are just not that into the former Veep candidate when it comes to actually leading. Gee, I wonder why.

Next up, we're joined by Tom Foreman, the poor sap who had to spend all day reading the book. Though CNN claims to be an objective network, this incident proves they are clearly pro-torture. I think Tom probably needs a hug right about now. Anyhoo! His suffering was not for naught: fact-checking was performed. Apparently, Palin is trying to play off the whole disastrous Katie Couric interview as something that was pushed by adviser Nicolle Wallace to give Couric a self esteem boost (wha?). Wallace claims the convo never happened. Given that I witnessed Wallace spin her way throughout the campaign, this is a bit of a tough-y regarding picking who's probably telling the truth.

We learn from Tom that Palin also got her facts wrong about the recession under Reagan and issues related to her ethics. In fact, the Associated Press is doing a big fact-check on the book, something Palin calls "opposition research." Supposedly there are 11 reporters dedicated to checking the book out. All well and good, but as Markos at Dailykos noted, gee, wouldn't it have been nice if they would have had 11 reporters investigate Bush's WMD claims? Priorities I guess.

Also mentioned by Tom, is that Palin brings up John Kerry's botched joke from three years ago, and calls him a "loon" for saying kids who don't do their homework will end up in Iraq. From Tom: "Kerry a long time ago explained that he was not disparaging our troops in those comments, but was making a joke about President Bush suggesting that he was not too bright for getting us into that war, Anderson." Irony alert! We're getting the no BS line tonight, but that is SO not how 360 played it back then. That's right, I remember. I often rail against CNN's stupid fake "balance," but that was one of the most egregious instances I had ever seen, and one of the few times I have ever questioned this show's objectivity.

Panel time (with bonus Oprah clips)! Keeping the seats warm are Republican Dede Scozzafava of New York 23 fame, Mary Matalin, and David Gergen. They talk about Palin making money and her political future and...man, I so don't care. Of note is Anderson Cooper's observation that Palin is like a Rorschach test. I just found that kind of funny because I often view CNN the same way. I also loved Anderson basically saying that facts don't matter to Palin's supporters. It's true! This segment is followed by an oddly placed "Beat 360," because apparently they want to confuse me.

On now to the news that William Jefferson will be going away for 13 years. You might remember him as the Congressional dude who thought he could put $90,000 in his freezer. Them's some cojones. This segues us into a Joe Johns piece on how all these Congressional crooks still get to keep their pensions. Outrage! Except, um, I don't understand the point here. See, two years ago Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act to prevent the collection of pensions of criminals.

The problem is people like Jefferson committed their crimes before the law was passed. Joe tells us that the constitution says you can't apply these things retroactively, so again, what's the what? Why is 360 telling me things that piss me off when there's nothing that can be done about it? Actually, they're not telling me at all--they're reminding me. With the exception of the new Jefferson info, this whole piece was pretty much a retread of the extensive reporting they did on this issue two years ago. At that time I repeatedly praised their commitment (check my archives). I guess now I don't understand how they're "keeping them honest." Is there actually something that could be done about the retroactive rule?

Transitioning now to the rather shocking news that the U.S. Preventative Services task force is now recommending that women wait until they're 50 to begin routine mammograms, rather than the previously advised 40. To complicate matters, a whole bunch of cancer experts are disagreeing. You know who's coming, doncha? Yep, Sanjay Gupta--the doc with the 1000 watt smile--is here to explain. Bottom line? These task force people aren't oncologists and you should listen to your own doctor (who will most likely say 40 to avoid being sued--just sayin').

Normally I think the whole "Text 360" thing is idiotic on several different levels, but tonight we got a great question: "Will insurance companies be able to claim that they will not pay for routine mammograms for women under 50 because it is no longer recommended?" Obviously they picked it because that's the angle they were going for, but duuuuuude. I didn't even think of that. That is totally what's going to happen. Now I have lots of questions. Who are these task force people? Can they be lobbied? Is this really about rationing? Go 360! There is honesty-keeping to do!

Next we have a preview for the Army tapes investigation, which is finally scheduled to start airing tomorrow. It looks really good.

Moving on now to discussion with Jeffrey Toobin about the Stupak abortion amendment, which was added to the House health care reform bill. Jeff has penned an interesting piece for the New Yorker that posits abortion is being marginalized. Which, it is. Says Jeff, "abortion is not treated like any other medical service." He then goes on to explain that though the Hyde amendment already prohibits public funds being used for abortions, Stupak is different in that individuals will be using their own money to buy their insurance policies. But because a percentage will be subsidized, their abortion rights will be off the table. Jeff estimates this will affect 20 million women.

The segment wraps up with this great quote, again from our senior legal analyst: "And one of the interesting things, as you study this around the world, is that abortion rates really don't change much if abortion is illegal. Brazil, abortions are illegal totally. But there are more abortions per capita than there are in the United States because women have abortions. They get them one way or another, either legally or illegally." So why not make them safe, legal, and rare?

For the "shot" tonight we get a clip of a dog welcoming home his soldier master. The Silver Fox makes the appropriate "aw" noises. I'm just going to go ahead and lay the whole mother lode down on you. If you can get through all those videos and not shed a tear, well, you don't have a soul.

The show was alright. I mean, you know, Palin. But I suppose we knew that was coming. Good info from Sanjay and Jeffrey. The show is at its best when they're investigating or being informative. The pundit chatter and political musings about non issues worked for them during the campaign, but that time is long over.