Reading the news these days is like perusing an Orwellian novel. The excursion into a fantasy world might be entertaining, but for the fact that current news reports are not intended as fiction.
The Supreme Court today hears oral arguments on the case challenging the Bush administration tribunals established to prosecute and judge what would otherwise be called "alleged" enemy combatants in the "War on Terror." Under the tribunal system, a detainee is labeled an "enemy combatant" without the right to challenge the accuracy or basis for the designation. The President determines and defines the "crimes" for which a detainee can be tried and convicted. The procedures used to try the detainee can be changed at any time that the Bush administration chooses. The right to test or challenge evidence presented against the detainee can be curtailed or eliminated. The presiding official is not required to be "impartial" and may be in the chain of command that includes the prosecutor. And the conviction and punishment of a detainee under these procedures, up to and including execution, is reviewable only by the President, without any oversight by the Legislative or Judicial Branches of government. Government lawyers argue that, at the time of the Revolutionary War when the Constitution was written, war prisoners could be shot on sight, so the current procedures are really doing the detainees a favor. They reluctantly concede, however, that there have been a few hundred years and some minor evolution of civilization and concepts of civil rights since that time.
One Supreme Court Justice [Roberts] has decided to recuse himself because he previously participated in review of the process in a lower appellate court proceeding. Another Justice, [Scalia] has already publicly stated that detainees have no rights under the Constitution or Geneva Convention. Justice Thomas lacks the ability to think independently, so he can be expected to vote however Scalia tells him to vote. It is up to the other six Justices to decide whether our Constitution and laws impose any constraints upon Presidential power and perogatives, once he declares that the country is at war.
Virtually all experts concede that the President has plenary power to use measures he deems militarily necessary to repel an attack or invasion. That discretion is generally seen to be limited to 15 days, unless a longer period can be effectively demonstrated as necessary. The 9/11 attack was years ago and there has been no demonstration of an actual subsequent attack or incursion since that time. The use of 9/11 or the Congressional authorization to use necessary force to support continued exercise of those "emergency" powers seems very stretched, if not completely disingenuous. Thus, in deciding this case, the Court may have to address whether the nation is, in fact, at war. If we are not in the emergent circumstances that were contemplated by the grant of emergency war powers, that justification for the tribunals will not stand.
Another issue to be addressed is whether, even in wartime, the President is not restricted by the Geneva Convention. That treaty and internationally accepted set of rules governing war does accord certain rights to prisoners and detainees, including those accused of being war criminals. The Bush administration argues that it is not bound by the Geneva Convention.
There is a school of thought that arrogates all power to the President, the ability to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, the authority to arrest and cause detainees to disappear or be executed without due process, and that all otehr branches of government are subservient to the Executive. There is a list of National leaders with similar attitudes toward international law and civil rights: Pinochet, Allende, Noriega, Amin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, and others. The question is why George W. Bush is so determined to add his name to the list.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
Scalia and The Gitmo Detainee Case - or "Who Are We Really?"
For those waiting for the next shoe to drop, consider the noise arising from the largely unpublicized speech of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to be a strong indicator of its descent. Speaking to an audience primarily of legal acadamicians in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that detainees who have been labeled "enemy combatants" have any rights under the Geneva Convention or the US Constitution. He did indirectly acknowledge a bias that could influence his judgment by referencing his son who was deployed by the US Army to Iraq. One can understand a somewhat less tolerant attitude toward those who pose a direct threat to a loved one. However, such indiscriminate remarks by a member of the Supreme Court is noteworthy.
One of the premises upon which Scalia based his remarks is simply wrong. The Geneva Convention does give certain rights to humane treatment to captured enemy combatants. Indeed, one might say that such protections relating to the rules of engagement in war are a fundamental reason for the Convention itself. It is true however, that the Geneva Convention does not expressly grant a detainee the right to access to civil courts. The access to civil rights and court process comes from the combination of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution. The Convention requires humane treatment of those within the control of US forces and authority. The Constitution provides rules and guidelines as to what such humane treatment entails. In effect, the Constitution defines the character of this Nation. If the Constitution permitted a system of summary execution without defense or right to face one's accuser, that would be the standard by which the US Government and courts would judge the treatment of detainees. But that is not the case, or at least not yet under the Bush administration and the current Supreme Court.
What Scalia seems to step over in his analysis is the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven, and applied in a situation where the opportunity to prove one's innocense is severely curtailed. The cases about the Gitmo detainees is primarily about the rights of prisoners to challenge the initial step in the process, the designation as "enemy combatant." Under current Bush administration rules and policies, a detainee does not even have the right to challenge the basis for being detained. In law, this is called "habeas corpus" or "present the body" to show why government action is taken. We have seen far too many examples in our judicial history of prisoners being condemned, imprisoned and in some cases even executed where the facts subsequently revealed conclusively that the wrong person had been accused. Imagine being imprisoned without access to counsel or the right to communicate with loved ones on the basis of being mistakenly identified as a political operative, or because a neighbor holding an old grudge falsely "informed" on you as being a terrorist.
There is also the prickly question of what constitutes a "war" for purposes of suspending and curtailing civil rights and liberties in this country. In the present circumstances, we are engaged in a military action against foreign combatants who have neither attacked or threatened the United States. This is labeled a "War on Terror" by the President. If that is a sufficient basis, then we would need to have some way of determining when the "war" has ended. Would that be when the government has decided that every last "terrorist" anywhere in the world has been captured or killed? When troops were deployed in Bosnia or Somalia on "peacekeeping" missions, did the use of military force to subdue an insurgency constitute a "war?" Does the "War on Drugs" in which military interdiction and assistance to capture traffikers suffice to suspend civil liberties? It is, to say the least, a slippery slope.
So the question is not really whether to give solicitous aid to those who are justly detained for having actually participated in actual combat activities against the US or its allies, or in planning or directly abetting enemy activity. The question is whether the system under which these detainees are being held can withstand even a minor test of its integrity to determine whether it is consistent with the fundamental principals upon which we as a nation base our belief in democracy and liberty. Assuming that a detainee is actually an enemy combatant, simply because someone placed that label without explanation or review of the decision is tantamount to saying that a prisoner is guilty because the police arrested him or her. We need to question whether such a system reflects the character of this country that is founded upon and reflected in the US Constitution, as it has been construed throughout our history and under Supreme Court precedent.
If the last bastion of our democracy has lost sight of this basic responsibility and function, and Scalia's comments would suggest that possibility, then the nation is truly in trouble. We have met the enemy, and he is ourselves. We will have become the type of government and people that our government proposes to undermine and overthrow based upon some abstract concept of liberty, freedom and democracy that we do not ourselves embrace or believe in.
One of the premises upon which Scalia based his remarks is simply wrong. The Geneva Convention does give certain rights to humane treatment to captured enemy combatants. Indeed, one might say that such protections relating to the rules of engagement in war are a fundamental reason for the Convention itself. It is true however, that the Geneva Convention does not expressly grant a detainee the right to access to civil courts. The access to civil rights and court process comes from the combination of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution. The Convention requires humane treatment of those within the control of US forces and authority. The Constitution provides rules and guidelines as to what such humane treatment entails. In effect, the Constitution defines the character of this Nation. If the Constitution permitted a system of summary execution without defense or right to face one's accuser, that would be the standard by which the US Government and courts would judge the treatment of detainees. But that is not the case, or at least not yet under the Bush administration and the current Supreme Court.
What Scalia seems to step over in his analysis is the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven, and applied in a situation where the opportunity to prove one's innocense is severely curtailed. The cases about the Gitmo detainees is primarily about the rights of prisoners to challenge the initial step in the process, the designation as "enemy combatant." Under current Bush administration rules and policies, a detainee does not even have the right to challenge the basis for being detained. In law, this is called "habeas corpus" or "present the body" to show why government action is taken. We have seen far too many examples in our judicial history of prisoners being condemned, imprisoned and in some cases even executed where the facts subsequently revealed conclusively that the wrong person had been accused. Imagine being imprisoned without access to counsel or the right to communicate with loved ones on the basis of being mistakenly identified as a political operative, or because a neighbor holding an old grudge falsely "informed" on you as being a terrorist.
There is also the prickly question of what constitutes a "war" for purposes of suspending and curtailing civil rights and liberties in this country. In the present circumstances, we are engaged in a military action against foreign combatants who have neither attacked or threatened the United States. This is labeled a "War on Terror" by the President. If that is a sufficient basis, then we would need to have some way of determining when the "war" has ended. Would that be when the government has decided that every last "terrorist" anywhere in the world has been captured or killed? When troops were deployed in Bosnia or Somalia on "peacekeeping" missions, did the use of military force to subdue an insurgency constitute a "war?" Does the "War on Drugs" in which military interdiction and assistance to capture traffikers suffice to suspend civil liberties? It is, to say the least, a slippery slope.
So the question is not really whether to give solicitous aid to those who are justly detained for having actually participated in actual combat activities against the US or its allies, or in planning or directly abetting enemy activity. The question is whether the system under which these detainees are being held can withstand even a minor test of its integrity to determine whether it is consistent with the fundamental principals upon which we as a nation base our belief in democracy and liberty. Assuming that a detainee is actually an enemy combatant, simply because someone placed that label without explanation or review of the decision is tantamount to saying that a prisoner is guilty because the police arrested him or her. We need to question whether such a system reflects the character of this country that is founded upon and reflected in the US Constitution, as it has been construed throughout our history and under Supreme Court precedent.
If the last bastion of our democracy has lost sight of this basic responsibility and function, and Scalia's comments would suggest that possibility, then the nation is truly in trouble. We have met the enemy, and he is ourselves. We will have become the type of government and people that our government proposes to undermine and overthrow based upon some abstract concept of liberty, freedom and democracy that we do not ourselves embrace or believe in.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Bush Media Blitz - "Talkin' Loud, But Sayin' Nothing"
In a series of speeches this past week, President bush has opened a media offensive to try to stem the hemorrhaging public support indicated in the polls. The most significant changes in this most recent blitz are that he has finally decided to speak to audiences that have not been completely sanitized and screened to prevent any dissenting opinion from marring his staged media appearances, and his acknowledgement of flagging public support. In fact, he even held a news conference for the first time in many months.
The message in these speeches, however, is essentially more of the same. He asserts that he does have a plan for victory Iraq, that the war effort is making progress and he blamed the media for portraying an overly pessimistic view of the situation in Iraq. What is not clear is whether such appearances will help his dismal standing in the polls, or nervousness of GOP representatives facing re-election this fall, when 40% of Republicans believe that the President lacks any coherent strategy for ending US troop involvement in Iraq. That view certainly could not have been helped when Bush stated that removal of troops from Iraq would be for "future presidents" to determine. In effect, he punted on the issue when questioned about providing any specifics of this "plan" that he allegedly has. His vague and repeated assertions about the "progress" in Iraq are in direct conflict with the broad based reports from international media sources on the ground, as well as US military reports.
The Iraqi army readiness level dropped from one unit to none, in terms of units capable of functioning without US leadership and support. Daily bombings and reports of killings and assassination in sectarian or insurgent violence indicate that the 'pacification" goals are more fantasy than fact. It would be a real stretch to suggest that the media of the entire world are conspiring to give Bush and his administration a black eye, especially with what the administration has shown in the way of ability to manufacture and plant positive news stories in the media. More likely, the picture painted by the media actually reflects the situation better than the rose colored view that Bush is selling in his recent speeches.
The most informative aspect of the speeches seems to be their provision of a glimpse into the mind of Bush and an ability to better determine whether Bush is just out of touch with the public, the domestic situation and the Iraq occupation, or whether he is truly delusional and actually believes that the world is as he would describe it. Unfortunately, the canned and repetitive nature of his speeches do not give a clear answer to that quandary. When GOP Congressional leaders have suggested that Bush adjust his message and strategy to take into account both changed circumstances and the deepening distrust of the public in his leadership and competence, he has rebuffed such advice. He has refused calls to bring in "new blood" that have been put forward by nervous GOP strategists for months. Again, the old cliche says that ignorance is curable, but stupidity is a choice to remain ignorant. It seems that the behavior of Bush veers toward the latter
So Bush goes about his media campaign saying nothing new about his strategy or plans, despite a continually worsening situation at home and abroad. Shakespeare spoke of the tales of an idiot "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A more recent poet, James Brown, broke it down thusly, "talkin' loud, but ain't sayin' nothing!"
The message in these speeches, however, is essentially more of the same. He asserts that he does have a plan for victory Iraq, that the war effort is making progress and he blamed the media for portraying an overly pessimistic view of the situation in Iraq. What is not clear is whether such appearances will help his dismal standing in the polls, or nervousness of GOP representatives facing re-election this fall, when 40% of Republicans believe that the President lacks any coherent strategy for ending US troop involvement in Iraq. That view certainly could not have been helped when Bush stated that removal of troops from Iraq would be for "future presidents" to determine. In effect, he punted on the issue when questioned about providing any specifics of this "plan" that he allegedly has. His vague and repeated assertions about the "progress" in Iraq are in direct conflict with the broad based reports from international media sources on the ground, as well as US military reports.
The Iraqi army readiness level dropped from one unit to none, in terms of units capable of functioning without US leadership and support. Daily bombings and reports of killings and assassination in sectarian or insurgent violence indicate that the 'pacification" goals are more fantasy than fact. It would be a real stretch to suggest that the media of the entire world are conspiring to give Bush and his administration a black eye, especially with what the administration has shown in the way of ability to manufacture and plant positive news stories in the media. More likely, the picture painted by the media actually reflects the situation better than the rose colored view that Bush is selling in his recent speeches.
The most informative aspect of the speeches seems to be their provision of a glimpse into the mind of Bush and an ability to better determine whether Bush is just out of touch with the public, the domestic situation and the Iraq occupation, or whether he is truly delusional and actually believes that the world is as he would describe it. Unfortunately, the canned and repetitive nature of his speeches do not give a clear answer to that quandary. When GOP Congressional leaders have suggested that Bush adjust his message and strategy to take into account both changed circumstances and the deepening distrust of the public in his leadership and competence, he has rebuffed such advice. He has refused calls to bring in "new blood" that have been put forward by nervous GOP strategists for months. Again, the old cliche says that ignorance is curable, but stupidity is a choice to remain ignorant. It seems that the behavior of Bush veers toward the latter
So Bush goes about his media campaign saying nothing new about his strategy or plans, despite a continually worsening situation at home and abroad. Shakespeare spoke of the tales of an idiot "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A more recent poet, James Brown, broke it down thusly, "talkin' loud, but ain't sayin' nothing!"
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Bush Ratings Slump - A Real Downer
New polls assessing public sentiment regarding the job performance of President Bush indicate the lowest approval of his entire tenure. Like the flip side of the Stock Market watch with news of daily historical highs, the public approval of George W. Bush's handling of the presidency continually seems to reach daily historic lows. Multiple polls currently yield identical results, lending credibility to the assessment. At overall approval running about 35%, it is fair to say that only about 1/3 of the Nation approves of the job GWB is doing. An interesting observation is that the disapproval runs across virtually all areas of competence and responsibility that the President is charged with. On domestic issues and the environment, approval barely reaches 30%.
The stock market is a curious beast, and it is difficult to explain its current rises toward levels close to that of five years ago at the inception of the Bush administration. Whether the buying binge is a sign of confidence in the future course of the economy, or a doomsday mentality of investors trying to make as much as they can quickly, before the bottom falls out, is unclear. If one looks at economic indicators, the relatively low interest rates could encourage investment in both stocks and in business equipment and machinery. Most of the "new jobs" allegedly created by the Bush administration, which continue to grow at rates less than projected, have been minimum wage, menial or hourly labor jobs. Only recently have reports begun to appear suggesting that employers are hiring middle managers. The looming presence is the national debt. After just raising the debt ceiling by about 900 Billion dollars to nearly 9 Trillion dollars, the interest tab the US government must pay on that debt consumes an increasing share of the annual budget. In essence, the funds we are paying in taxes and fees are increasingly going to pay debt rather than for infrastructure, services to the public or anything productive.
The Iraq invasion seems to be crawling out from under a rock in the view of the public. Bush administration propaganda, media negligence and inattention have kept many from seeing the "mission" for the ill conceived and even more poorly executed debacle that it is. Only yesterday I heard a caller on a NPR radio talk show concede that there "probably" were no WMD's and biological weapons in Iraq when the invasion began. It is doubtful that he is the only person remaining who has not read the comprehensive documentation and heard the President's concession that there were none. Propaganda and high powered, well financed PR spin machines are effective tools that have been used to fool the public. This explains why we still see Bush making public speeches that are clearly misleading and more frequently outright lies. He is not preaching to the intelligencia, he is seeking to reinforce the brainwashing that has been accomplished during Karl Rove's tenure and Minister of mind control.
In a recent news conference, when asked about the stalled effort and civil war situation in Iraq, Bush used the old snake oil salesman's retort - "Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?" He tells the public that things are improving despite the fact that all independent reports and even a substantial number of administration reports suggest the exact opposite. He says that people who say he wanted war are wrong, when a mountain of evidence shows that the invasion was not necessary and that there was no immediate or imminent threat from Iraq, Saddam Hussein or anyone in the Hussein regime in Iraq. Again, he says that his vision of leadership is to "stay the course" until "victory" is achieved. Whether he is deceitful or delusional, the influence of the President to get people to believe the unbelievable and accept lies as truth is on the wane.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But it does appear that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And with mid-term elections closing in this November, more and more GOP congressional representatives are coming down from their acid trips and beginning to look at the world with eyes free of hallucinogens and recognize that their political survival depends upon responding to the world as it really is, instead of the fantasy created by the Bush PR machine.
The stock market is a curious beast, and it is difficult to explain its current rises toward levels close to that of five years ago at the inception of the Bush administration. Whether the buying binge is a sign of confidence in the future course of the economy, or a doomsday mentality of investors trying to make as much as they can quickly, before the bottom falls out, is unclear. If one looks at economic indicators, the relatively low interest rates could encourage investment in both stocks and in business equipment and machinery. Most of the "new jobs" allegedly created by the Bush administration, which continue to grow at rates less than projected, have been minimum wage, menial or hourly labor jobs. Only recently have reports begun to appear suggesting that employers are hiring middle managers. The looming presence is the national debt. After just raising the debt ceiling by about 900 Billion dollars to nearly 9 Trillion dollars, the interest tab the US government must pay on that debt consumes an increasing share of the annual budget. In essence, the funds we are paying in taxes and fees are increasingly going to pay debt rather than for infrastructure, services to the public or anything productive.
The Iraq invasion seems to be crawling out from under a rock in the view of the public. Bush administration propaganda, media negligence and inattention have kept many from seeing the "mission" for the ill conceived and even more poorly executed debacle that it is. Only yesterday I heard a caller on a NPR radio talk show concede that there "probably" were no WMD's and biological weapons in Iraq when the invasion began. It is doubtful that he is the only person remaining who has not read the comprehensive documentation and heard the President's concession that there were none. Propaganda and high powered, well financed PR spin machines are effective tools that have been used to fool the public. This explains why we still see Bush making public speeches that are clearly misleading and more frequently outright lies. He is not preaching to the intelligencia, he is seeking to reinforce the brainwashing that has been accomplished during Karl Rove's tenure and Minister of mind control.
In a recent news conference, when asked about the stalled effort and civil war situation in Iraq, Bush used the old snake oil salesman's retort - "Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?" He tells the public that things are improving despite the fact that all independent reports and even a substantial number of administration reports suggest the exact opposite. He says that people who say he wanted war are wrong, when a mountain of evidence shows that the invasion was not necessary and that there was no immediate or imminent threat from Iraq, Saddam Hussein or anyone in the Hussein regime in Iraq. Again, he says that his vision of leadership is to "stay the course" until "victory" is achieved. Whether he is deceitful or delusional, the influence of the President to get people to believe the unbelievable and accept lies as truth is on the wane.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But it does appear that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And with mid-term elections closing in this November, more and more GOP congressional representatives are coming down from their acid trips and beginning to look at the world with eyes free of hallucinogens and recognize that their political survival depends upon responding to the world as it really is, instead of the fantasy created by the Bush PR machine.
FEMA to recover "undeserved" Katrina Aid
After receiving round criticism for its poor judgment and execution of relief efforts relating to the Katrina hurricane disaster, FEMA again displays judgment that suggests that whoever may be heading the agency has not gotten wiser with time and experience. GAO audits revealed sloppy management in delivery of relief funds to those impacted by the disaster. While acknowledging the importance of getting the aid out to needy households [after a loud public and Congressional protest over inaction], GAO suggested that some fraud prevention controls could and should have been put in place. The amount of money that was given out to households or persons who were possibly undeserving could have been as much as $100 million. This sounds like a typical report from an independent auditor.
What is noteworthy is the subsequent determination by FEMA to go after and spend substantial funds to prosecute individuals who may have received as much as $2000 in aid that may have been undeserved or overpaid [because of duplicate payments by FEMA]. No one suggests that the misapplication or misuse of government funds is not an issue of concern.
The public policy implication of using government resources to prosecute poor individuals who received small payments as a result of a frantic and disorganized push to deliver aid in a disaster situation is telling. We have seen documentation of deliberate and fraudulent overcharges by Halliburton and its subsidiaries for no-bid contract services in Iraq and relating to the Katrina relief. We see reports of "contractors" handing out truckloads of funds without records, monitoring or audit controls in Iraq that amounted to millions of dollars. Little has been done to prosecute Halliburton or to recover the funds obtained by fraud and overcharging. The excuse for not prosecuting contractors for handing out or diverting funds for which no services or justification has been received is that the situation was emergent or chaotic and it was unclear who was in charge. What is not evident is how that excuse differs from the circumstances under which Katrina aid was delivered. Moreover, a single prosecution of Brown & Root could yield 100 to 10,000 times the recovery that prosecution of a Katrina aid recipient might yield.
There is an old cynical cliche in Black neighborhoods, that if you are Black and poor and steal a loaf of bread - you will go to jail for years; but if you are white and rich and steal a million dollars - you will get a promotion or another contract. Perhaps the Bush administration has heard the cliche and adopted it as its domestic policy.
What is noteworthy is the subsequent determination by FEMA to go after and spend substantial funds to prosecute individuals who may have received as much as $2000 in aid that may have been undeserved or overpaid [because of duplicate payments by FEMA]. No one suggests that the misapplication or misuse of government funds is not an issue of concern.
The public policy implication of using government resources to prosecute poor individuals who received small payments as a result of a frantic and disorganized push to deliver aid in a disaster situation is telling. We have seen documentation of deliberate and fraudulent overcharges by Halliburton and its subsidiaries for no-bid contract services in Iraq and relating to the Katrina relief. We see reports of "contractors" handing out truckloads of funds without records, monitoring or audit controls in Iraq that amounted to millions of dollars. Little has been done to prosecute Halliburton or to recover the funds obtained by fraud and overcharging. The excuse for not prosecuting contractors for handing out or diverting funds for which no services or justification has been received is that the situation was emergent or chaotic and it was unclear who was in charge. What is not evident is how that excuse differs from the circumstances under which Katrina aid was delivered. Moreover, a single prosecution of Brown & Root could yield 100 to 10,000 times the recovery that prosecution of a Katrina aid recipient might yield.
There is an old cynical cliche in Black neighborhoods, that if you are Black and poor and steal a loaf of bread - you will go to jail for years; but if you are white and rich and steal a million dollars - you will get a promotion or another contract. Perhaps the Bush administration has heard the cliche and adopted it as its domestic policy.
Friday, March 10, 2006
"Another Fine Mess You Gotten Me Into"- GOP wary of Bush
After following GWB for five years like a pack of hyenas or mindless lemmings, GOP Congressional Representatives facing the electorate about 8 months from now have finally lifted their noses to the political winds and found the aroma more of a stench than a blissful scent. Finally beginning to realize that the path upon which they have been "led" has brought them to an untenable quagmire, the signs of revolt are breaking out everywhere. Recrimination, back biting and other distinctly non-collegial behaviors are becoming so evident that the media is obliged to report breaks in the ranks, despite their reluctance to report any discouraging word regarding the Bush/Cheney "Empire's" reign.
The Bush administration, with Karl Rove at the helm, has so successfully created hype and hysteria based upon bigoted race and religious fears that the nation is cautiously looking for the enemy" under every bed and especially among non-white people or those of a non-Christian religion. Civil rights protections have been trampled and abandoned with only marginal protest, and daily lives substantially burdened for the sake of an illusion of "national security." With the country primed to distrust and hate all things "Arab," the White House was caught unawares when approval of a multi-billion dollar deal to turn over operational control of six major US ports to a company owned by a United Arab Emirates nation surfaced. This really put Bush in the middle of a mess. Eager to appear publicly like he knew what he was doing, Bush reacted to criticism of the deal by threatening to veto any legislation intended to block the deal. News leaked out that Bush was not even on top of the details of the transaction when the story broke, a typical state of awareness Bush seems to exhibit when critical affairs of state arise.
After months and months of stumping around the nation spouting platitudes that he promises to do everything in his power to protect "national security" and the American people, the White House support for ceding control of major ports to a company owned by a Nation that had direct involvement in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 seemed a bit too much for even the hyenas to swallow. GOP representatives and even Congressional GOP leadership threatened to introduce legislation to block the deal unless the White House backed down. Congressional Democrats could express public "outrage" while sitting back in their impotent seats and allowing the GOP to savage its own.
As a practical matter, it is far from clear that the operation of Major US ports would be any less safe under the direction of a company owned by Dubai or any other country. The current port operations involve a variety of companies handling imports and freight. A recent study showed that a substantial percentage of the workers and truck drivers currently handling freight at major ports have criminal records and false identification papers. So the situation would be unlikely to worsen, and the ports are very far from "safe" or "secure" at the present time, more than four years after 9/11 and after Bush began making his pledge to the American people.
But the furor created by the Port operations deal is based largely upon bigotry incited by the Bush Administration and the GOP Leadership [with the help of some supposed "leaders" in the Democratic loyal opposition] against Arabs and Muslims. It is an unfortunate storm that speaks ill of the character of this Nation and its people. But it is a storm of choice, not a force of nature or "act of God" by any means. The controversy is not really about making the ports safer from potential terrorist threats, any more than invading Iraq was about making the US safer. In a larger sense, it is about a collision between a basic GOP principle of "Free Trade" and an Administration committed to amoral exploitation, corruption and greed. But for the polemics and hyperbole necessitated by the phony "War on Terror" used as a cover for the orchestrated illegal invasion of Iraq in order to gain control of Middle east petroleum reserves, the ports deal would probably not have seen major opposition. But the public/electorate is attuned to distrust all things Arab as a potential threat to "national security."
Caught in a quagmire of philosophical contradiction and public distrust as a result of moves orchestrated by ineffectual and incompetent White House leadership, GOP Congressional Representatives fear the November "killing fields" of the electorate where they will be caught in a crossfire between a staunch GOP base accusing them of party disloyalty, and other voters blaming them for following Bush into such a stupid situation in the first place without thinking or questioning the rationality of Administration policies and actions. Democrats who supported the President and GOP moves that led to this quagmire should be similarly concerned. Listening to the rhetoric and sloganeering, instead of putting in the effort to truly examine what was being done may prove to have been not only lazy, but politically dangerous.
The Bush administration, with Karl Rove at the helm, has so successfully created hype and hysteria based upon bigoted race and religious fears that the nation is cautiously looking for the enemy" under every bed and especially among non-white people or those of a non-Christian religion. Civil rights protections have been trampled and abandoned with only marginal protest, and daily lives substantially burdened for the sake of an illusion of "national security." With the country primed to distrust and hate all things "Arab," the White House was caught unawares when approval of a multi-billion dollar deal to turn over operational control of six major US ports to a company owned by a United Arab Emirates nation surfaced. This really put Bush in the middle of a mess. Eager to appear publicly like he knew what he was doing, Bush reacted to criticism of the deal by threatening to veto any legislation intended to block the deal. News leaked out that Bush was not even on top of the details of the transaction when the story broke, a typical state of awareness Bush seems to exhibit when critical affairs of state arise.
After months and months of stumping around the nation spouting platitudes that he promises to do everything in his power to protect "national security" and the American people, the White House support for ceding control of major ports to a company owned by a Nation that had direct involvement in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 seemed a bit too much for even the hyenas to swallow. GOP representatives and even Congressional GOP leadership threatened to introduce legislation to block the deal unless the White House backed down. Congressional Democrats could express public "outrage" while sitting back in their impotent seats and allowing the GOP to savage its own.
As a practical matter, it is far from clear that the operation of Major US ports would be any less safe under the direction of a company owned by Dubai or any other country. The current port operations involve a variety of companies handling imports and freight. A recent study showed that a substantial percentage of the workers and truck drivers currently handling freight at major ports have criminal records and false identification papers. So the situation would be unlikely to worsen, and the ports are very far from "safe" or "secure" at the present time, more than four years after 9/11 and after Bush began making his pledge to the American people.
But the furor created by the Port operations deal is based largely upon bigotry incited by the Bush Administration and the GOP Leadership [with the help of some supposed "leaders" in the Democratic loyal opposition] against Arabs and Muslims. It is an unfortunate storm that speaks ill of the character of this Nation and its people. But it is a storm of choice, not a force of nature or "act of God" by any means. The controversy is not really about making the ports safer from potential terrorist threats, any more than invading Iraq was about making the US safer. In a larger sense, it is about a collision between a basic GOP principle of "Free Trade" and an Administration committed to amoral exploitation, corruption and greed. But for the polemics and hyperbole necessitated by the phony "War on Terror" used as a cover for the orchestrated illegal invasion of Iraq in order to gain control of Middle east petroleum reserves, the ports deal would probably not have seen major opposition. But the public/electorate is attuned to distrust all things Arab as a potential threat to "national security."
Caught in a quagmire of philosophical contradiction and public distrust as a result of moves orchestrated by ineffectual and incompetent White House leadership, GOP Congressional Representatives fear the November "killing fields" of the electorate where they will be caught in a crossfire between a staunch GOP base accusing them of party disloyalty, and other voters blaming them for following Bush into such a stupid situation in the first place without thinking or questioning the rationality of Administration policies and actions. Democrats who supported the President and GOP moves that led to this quagmire should be similarly concerned. Listening to the rhetoric and sloganeering, instead of putting in the effort to truly examine what was being done may prove to have been not only lazy, but politically dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)