The drumbeat continues as US emissaries continue to trot the globe in search of an excuse to take military action or further escalate the tensions betweeen the US and Iran. There is no real mystery about the Iran "controversy" in the minds of most mentally and emotionally balanced people. Apart from some notion of Islamaphobia and a financial motive to prop up oil prices, there is no coherent rationale, sane or otherwise, for actually pursuing any course other than diplomacy toward the Iran "nuclear" issue.
Let's be clear for a moment. Iran is in the process of developing technology to enrich uranium. At present, it will take years before they have the actual capacity to enrich enough uranium for use as fuel for electricity generating facilities. That is a peaceful purpose that no entity, no country and not even the United Nations should attempt to deny the Iranian people. The idea that some sort of sanctions must now be imposed because the Iranian leadership may "desire" to develop capacity to enrich uranium sufficient for weapons capability a decade in the future is absurd. No inspector, diplomat or expert has indicated any credible evidence that there is any near term threat or even the possibility of a threat to US or international interests from Iran having nuclear weapons capability.
What we have is a lot of baiting and bellicose rhetoric being tossed out in public. The Arabic and Islamic culture is imbued with the notion of maintaining "face" in a manner not unlike traditional Japanese culture. So when George Bush goes public with the needless provocation that "the US will not allow" Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability, it is not unexpected that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard line Iranian President, would publicly counter that the US has no right to tell Iran what the Iranian government can or cannot do. What we really have is a couple of slow witted and loud mouthed leaders arguing and baiting each other in public. The US is, at the same time, attempting to place pressure on other countries to "choose up sides" for a battle that need never happen.
Yesterday, the price of crude oil went above $70 a barrel heading toward $80. Reports state that current petroleum supplies are the highest they have been in eight years and yet the price of gasoline heads north of $3 per gallon. What is the reason for the price boost? We are told it is the political instability in the Mideast, and particularly with regard to the Iran "crisis." If I were an investor, or owed a lot of favors to oil companies, I would encourage the President to continue just what he is doing. Keep escalating and hyping an illusory "crisis" so that the oil companies can rake in ungodly profits while everyone's attention is focused on fear of another "war" that the US must preemptively invoke to "protect Americans from terrorism."
The flaw in this whole scenario is amply demonstrated by the Iraqi fiasco. When Bush plays Global War games to suit his ego and family financial interests, the consequences are not as predictable as anyone would like. And the real life consequences in Iraq involve thousands of American soldiers killed, tens of thousands maimed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, maimed or displaced as a result of Bush's incompetent and miscalculated strategy. We have to believe that Bush never understood the gravity of his actions or the stupidity of his policies when he publicly baited the Iraqi insurgency to "bring it on" after he had declared the Iraqi mission "accomplished" following the Shock & Awe invasion. To assume that he knew and understood what he was doing would mean that he is one of the most cruel, evil and murderous leaders that modern history has ever known.
Bush and Ahmadinejad are playing with a fire that neither of them has the ability to control. They are both spoiling for a fight that need not happen. If the US stops the bellicose rhetoric about "keeping military options on the table" and simply goes about a rational diplomatic strategy, the reactionary rhetoric from Iran will subside. But if Bush continues on the same course of provocation and threats [actual and implied] he currently is on, the Iranian leadership will believe that they have no choice except to respond in kind. Turn your rational mind to North Korea. The rhetoric is nowhere near as volatile, yet we know that the country has limited nuclear capability greater than Iran. still we are not experiencing the same brinksmanship with regard to relations with the North Korean government.
Consider that some of the same defensive logic applies. North Korea claimed that it needed to develop a nuclear deterrent because of the hostile and threatening posture and rhetoric coming from Washington. With the US announcing "contingency planning" for tactical nuclear strikes against Iran, does anyone doubt the rationale for the Iranian Government to claim that it maintains the right to take any measures it sees fit to defend itself from hostile foreign threats of attack on its sovereignty?
Let us hope that some measure of sanity will prevail. If the matter remains in the United Nations, there is at least modest reason for optimism. Hopefully, no country would be as unintelligent and misguided as Great Britain was regarding Iraq, and agree to join the US in any unilateral invasion of Iran. The predictions of Nostradamus aside, I have no great desire to see the next World War [predicted to begin in the Middle East] start up this year or the next. If things can hold off long enough to get some indiscriminate testosterone and bellicosity out of the White House, our children may yet have a future.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The Bush Administration's "Classified" Shell Game
With every passing day, more and more "classified" evidence comes to light that suggests and reaffirms that the Bush Administration held a predetermined strategy to invade Iraq, to manipulate or fabricate evidence to justify that strategy and to attack the credibility and punish anyone who went public with criticism of the President’s strategy. Much time can be wasted arguing over who specifically initiated or approved specific acts. That effort involves microscopic examination of the trees while the forest looms large before us. Stepping back and applying simple logic leads to the conclusion that, regardless of which player assumed what specific role, the entire team and its leadership were responsible for what took place. These circumstances involve leading a country to a military invasion that has cost thousands of American soldiers their lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians their lives and sucked billions of dollars from the US economic resources. This situation above all others calls for application of the Principle that “the buck stops here” at the Oval Office. The President is responsible for knowing what his administration was doing, and must be held accountable even if he lacked actual knowledge of all the specifics.
Many news reports have detailed the Fitzgerald court filing in which the revelation that Bush authorized the selective leak of “classified” information to journalists to undermine and punish former ambassador Joe Wilson for debunking the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing yellow cake uranium from Niger.
New reports reveal that a team of highly qualified specialists were dispatched to Iraq to examine the mobile trailers alleged to be “mobile biological weapons laboratories” by Bush administration operatives. The report filed and forwarded to Washington on May 27, 2003 stated unequivocally that the trailers were not related to anything biological and certainly were not bioweapons manufacturing facilities. A Washington Post investigative report disclosed the following:
The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.
"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers.
Two days later, the President, who was under intense pressure from critics of the administration’s failure to discover any WMD’s as a result of the invasion of Iraq, went public with the following announcement:
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
There will undoubtedly be a rash of finger pointing and exculpatory posturing about who had what information when. The report was classified and most likely sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency that dispatched the investigative team. The White House can be expected to take the “plausible deniability” approach and say that they had not read the report prior to the President’s public proclamation. But again we return to the trees and forest analogy. It was incumbent upon the President and his staff to know that an investigation of the mobile trailers was undertaken, particularly if those facilities were intended as justification for taking the nation into non-defensive military conflict. Further, it was not only logical but imperative that the administration check on the status of that investigation prior to making a public statement that those facilities were biological weapons labs. Instead, as the Washington Post reported:
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.
We have heard evidence in the “Downing Street Memos” of the President’s assertion that he intended to go forward with the invasion, regardless of whether the UN Resolution supporting the attack was passed. The British Government senior officials were told that “the facts were being fixed around the policy.” Now two clear incidents of shelved or concealed critical reports directly contradicting the administration’s policy have come to light.
Former chief of counterintelligence Clark detailed how the administration used intimidation and political maneuvering to get the answers that it wanted from subordinates. When Clark reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, the President ordered him repeatedly to go back and “take another look” implicitly telling Clark that he had given the wrong answer. Under this environment, it makes little difference whether the DIA report on the mobile trailers was ignored by the White House or diverted by the head of the DIA. The administration had made clear that it did not want to hear any evidence that its policy of invading Iraq was wrong. Given the intense battle that ensued after claims of faulty intelligence by the agencies vs. manipulated intelligence by the White House, it is more probable that the DIA forwarded the classified report to the White House. From that point, it is irrelevant who within the administration showed it to the President or concealed it from him while encouraging the President to make a blatantly false and misleading public pronouncement.
The administration continues to play the “classified” information shell game. The National Intelligence Estimate information leaked by Libby was, we are now told, secretly declassified by the President. Yet his administration continued for months to maintain publicly that the information was classified and that whoever leaked it would be caught and fired. The Washing Post reports: “Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency both declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified.”
The President has repeatedly stated that what he is doing and will do is what the American people want. The public has repeatedly spoken in poll after poll indicating that the President should be held accountable and possibly impeached if evidence showed that he misled the country into war in Iraq. At the very least, it is time for the President to come clean and disclose the evidence that was available and the information he relied upon to make the determination to use “preemptive war” as a strategy and policy of the United States. There is no legitimacy to the argument that declassification of such information at this point aids the “enemy.” Publication of the reports is historical and has no current strategic value to the Iraqi insurgency. The only “enemy” that could possibly be aided by release of the information is the American people. If that is how this administration perceives us, then it is time to deal with the problem and resolve it.
Many news reports have detailed the Fitzgerald court filing in which the revelation that Bush authorized the selective leak of “classified” information to journalists to undermine and punish former ambassador Joe Wilson for debunking the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing yellow cake uranium from Niger.
New reports reveal that a team of highly qualified specialists were dispatched to Iraq to examine the mobile trailers alleged to be “mobile biological weapons laboratories” by Bush administration operatives. The report filed and forwarded to Washington on May 27, 2003 stated unequivocally that the trailers were not related to anything biological and certainly were not bioweapons manufacturing facilities. A Washington Post investigative report disclosed the following:
The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.
"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers.
Two days later, the President, who was under intense pressure from critics of the administration’s failure to discover any WMD’s as a result of the invasion of Iraq, went public with the following announcement:
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
There will undoubtedly be a rash of finger pointing and exculpatory posturing about who had what information when. The report was classified and most likely sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency that dispatched the investigative team. The White House can be expected to take the “plausible deniability” approach and say that they had not read the report prior to the President’s public proclamation. But again we return to the trees and forest analogy. It was incumbent upon the President and his staff to know that an investigation of the mobile trailers was undertaken, particularly if those facilities were intended as justification for taking the nation into non-defensive military conflict. Further, it was not only logical but imperative that the administration check on the status of that investigation prior to making a public statement that those facilities were biological weapons labs. Instead, as the Washington Post reported:
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.
We have heard evidence in the “Downing Street Memos” of the President’s assertion that he intended to go forward with the invasion, regardless of whether the UN Resolution supporting the attack was passed. The British Government senior officials were told that “the facts were being fixed around the policy.” Now two clear incidents of shelved or concealed critical reports directly contradicting the administration’s policy have come to light.
Former chief of counterintelligence Clark detailed how the administration used intimidation and political maneuvering to get the answers that it wanted from subordinates. When Clark reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, the President ordered him repeatedly to go back and “take another look” implicitly telling Clark that he had given the wrong answer. Under this environment, it makes little difference whether the DIA report on the mobile trailers was ignored by the White House or diverted by the head of the DIA. The administration had made clear that it did not want to hear any evidence that its policy of invading Iraq was wrong. Given the intense battle that ensued after claims of faulty intelligence by the agencies vs. manipulated intelligence by the White House, it is more probable that the DIA forwarded the classified report to the White House. From that point, it is irrelevant who within the administration showed it to the President or concealed it from him while encouraging the President to make a blatantly false and misleading public pronouncement.
The administration continues to play the “classified” information shell game. The National Intelligence Estimate information leaked by Libby was, we are now told, secretly declassified by the President. Yet his administration continued for months to maintain publicly that the information was classified and that whoever leaked it would be caught and fired. The Washing Post reports: “Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency both declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified.”
The President has repeatedly stated that what he is doing and will do is what the American people want. The public has repeatedly spoken in poll after poll indicating that the President should be held accountable and possibly impeached if evidence showed that he misled the country into war in Iraq. At the very least, it is time for the President to come clean and disclose the evidence that was available and the information he relied upon to make the determination to use “preemptive war” as a strategy and policy of the United States. There is no legitimacy to the argument that declassification of such information at this point aids the “enemy.” Publication of the reports is historical and has no current strategic value to the Iraqi insurgency. The only “enemy” that could possibly be aided by release of the information is the American people. If that is how this administration perceives us, then it is time to deal with the problem and resolve it.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Nanotechnology & Worker Safety: Under the Radar?
Many science experts have been predicting for years that nanotechnology is the next industrial revolution that we face. Estimates say that by 2014 there will be more than 2 Trillion dollars worth of goods manufactured and sold that incorporate nanotechnology. THis would be more than 200 times the 2004 reported level. Minute yet complex particles are made up of objects that are no larger than tubes or spheres a few atoms in length or diameter. These particles can be used for a variety of helpful functions, like transporting electricity through previously resistant materials or transporting drugs to particular damaged or infected cells. They also can be used for seemingly pedestrian purposes like helping cloth retain color or fabrics repel water, uses that translate into huge dollars when incorporated into the existing manufacturing processes. Without question, nanotechnology represents a great opportunity to move the partnership between science and manufacturing forward, not unlike cybertechnology propelled the information age into warp speed.
Every “discovery” also brings with it a potential curse, and the same is true of nanotechnology. While the potential benefits of these particles is enormous, the risk to those involved in their production and use may be equally large. Historically, the dangers of chemicals and workplace substances have been discovered as a result of morbidity analysis of exposed workers. The health risk of exposure to asbestos was discovered and understood after shipbuilders because sick and many died from lung disease at alarmingly higher rates than the general public. Hat makers exposed to mercury treated felt, and painters exposed to lead based paint provided information from which the neurotoxicity of those substances was better understood. But the argument could be made that we ought to at least try to move beyond the strategy that coal miners used to test workplace safety. They would put a bird in a cage and take it into the mine. If the bird died, it meant that the air in the shaft was unfit for the workers. Today’s science ought to allow us to treat our workers better than those birds were treated.
The problem is that the science of discovery usually outpaces the attention paid to safety. The theme of mad scientists that runs through movie lore involves scientists who disregard safety to explore the effects of new and unproven chemical substances. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration typically lags behind industry in developing and implementing safety standards for the workplace that protect workers exposed to such chemicals and substances from unreasonable risk. Many businesses concerned almost exclusively with their bottom line profitability have in the past ignored or suppressed concerns about employee safety, treating OSHA as a threat or a nuisance instead of an ally.
That may be changing a bit as we move into the bold future of nanotechnology. The problem is that so little is known about the health impact or risks of nanomaterials. Some nanoparticles exist naturally and we are exposed to them routinely. However, little is known about the specific impact of these naturally occurring elements on human health. Imagine then our lack of knowledge and understanding of the impact and risks associated with artificially produced nanoparticles that are more complex than the natural ones, but still smaller than a virus. When medical science began to understand the virus and the risks associated with viral infections as compared to infection from far larger bacteria, a whole new way of treating diseases emerged. A similar new way of thinking may be required for workplace safety monitoring and risk analysis.
Right now, OSHA and industry lack the equipment in any economically viable and portable form to measure and monitor worker exposure. And to the extent that health impacts may be latent, gradual, cumulative or synergistic, many current workers may be irretrievably compromised from exposure while data is being collected and analyzed. In an age where the technical training and experience of workers in modern manufacturing is more and more important, industry cannot afford to treat its workers as fungible and expendable in the same way that miners were treated in the past. We can only hope that responsible industry representatives will establish partnerships with OSHA, NIH (National Institute of Health) and NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) to speed up the learning curve on what impacts nanomaterial exposure may have on human health.
Every “discovery” also brings with it a potential curse, and the same is true of nanotechnology. While the potential benefits of these particles is enormous, the risk to those involved in their production and use may be equally large. Historically, the dangers of chemicals and workplace substances have been discovered as a result of morbidity analysis of exposed workers. The health risk of exposure to asbestos was discovered and understood after shipbuilders because sick and many died from lung disease at alarmingly higher rates than the general public. Hat makers exposed to mercury treated felt, and painters exposed to lead based paint provided information from which the neurotoxicity of those substances was better understood. But the argument could be made that we ought to at least try to move beyond the strategy that coal miners used to test workplace safety. They would put a bird in a cage and take it into the mine. If the bird died, it meant that the air in the shaft was unfit for the workers. Today’s science ought to allow us to treat our workers better than those birds were treated.
The problem is that the science of discovery usually outpaces the attention paid to safety. The theme of mad scientists that runs through movie lore involves scientists who disregard safety to explore the effects of new and unproven chemical substances. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration typically lags behind industry in developing and implementing safety standards for the workplace that protect workers exposed to such chemicals and substances from unreasonable risk. Many businesses concerned almost exclusively with their bottom line profitability have in the past ignored or suppressed concerns about employee safety, treating OSHA as a threat or a nuisance instead of an ally.
That may be changing a bit as we move into the bold future of nanotechnology. The problem is that so little is known about the health impact or risks of nanomaterials. Some nanoparticles exist naturally and we are exposed to them routinely. However, little is known about the specific impact of these naturally occurring elements on human health. Imagine then our lack of knowledge and understanding of the impact and risks associated with artificially produced nanoparticles that are more complex than the natural ones, but still smaller than a virus. When medical science began to understand the virus and the risks associated with viral infections as compared to infection from far larger bacteria, a whole new way of treating diseases emerged. A similar new way of thinking may be required for workplace safety monitoring and risk analysis.
Right now, OSHA and industry lack the equipment in any economically viable and portable form to measure and monitor worker exposure. And to the extent that health impacts may be latent, gradual, cumulative or synergistic, many current workers may be irretrievably compromised from exposure while data is being collected and analyzed. In an age where the technical training and experience of workers in modern manufacturing is more and more important, industry cannot afford to treat its workers as fungible and expendable in the same way that miners were treated in the past. We can only hope that responsible industry representatives will establish partnerships with OSHA, NIH (National Institute of Health) and NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) to speed up the learning curve on what impacts nanomaterial exposure may have on human health.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Immigration Reform Compromise: "We hardly knew ye"
The Senate compromise measure on Immigration reform now appears doomed, as does immigration reform legislation for this year, after a key vote to block the myriad of amendments seeking to undermine the compromise measure attracted only 38 of the 60 votes needed. As expected, there is a great deal of finger pointing going on currently. In these situations, it is more helpful to examine what the politicians did and are doing, rather than listen to what they say publicly. The GOP accuses the Democrats of not wanting the bill to go forward.
“It’s not gone forward because there’s a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
However, the actual vote on the critical procedural step blocking amendments went along party lines. Democrats voted in favor and GOP members of the Senate voted against. Rhetoric aside, had the GOP majority truly wanted the compromise measure to go forward in the form agreed, it is quite clear that it would have done so. They hold the majority and there were more than enough Democrats supporting the procedural motion to block amendments to make up the 60 votes needed. The more probable explanation is that the GOP leadership obtained the agreement of its members with the promise that they would be able to weaken and undermine the compromise measure through amendments prior to passage. Alternatively, GOP Senators fraudulently indicated their support for the compromise while al the while intending to undermine the compromise with amendments. Perhaps if Bill Frist had the clout that Tom "the Hammer" Delay previously had in the House, the Senate GOP members would have been intimidated and disciplined to stay in line with the compromise accord. Politically, it would have been better in an election year for the Senate members to pass the compromise measure without amendments and then see it scuttled in the Conference Committee, because the Senate bill differs so much from the House measure.
The tragedy in this whole episode/saga is that a truly serious issue, deserving of serious thought and action, has been trivialized by a "Swift Boat" style jingoistic smear campaign. Provoked in large measure by bigotry and pseudo patriotic attitudes, these critics have labeled any pragmatic attempt to humanely address the very real problem of undocumented aliens who already live in this country [millions of them]. Their "law & order" strategy is to build a large double or triple fence across the US-Mexican border [note that no similar proposal has been put forward for the US -Canadian border] and deport all undocumented aliens immediately. Their talisman phrase is that there must be no "amnesty." Any proposal to legalize the status of these aliens is labeled "amnesty" and is therefore deemed unacceptable. They forget or ignore the fact that this "Law & Order" approach has failed miserably over the past two decades while the problem has worsened.
Whether granting amnesty is necessarily a bad thing could be debated. What they call "amnesty" is, in fact, done daily through prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system, and in granting asylum or making deportation prosecution decisions in the immigration system as well. But the staunch "patriotic" opponents of immigration reform shun civil and reasoned debate. In addition, there is a logical inconsistency in their - "they broke our laws, they must be punished" - approach to the problem. It is a flaw that opponents should be very careful to consider. In the criminal prosecution system, an accused is usually offered leniency for cooperation with authorities in finding and convicting other lawbreakers. Law enforcement usually seeks to gain as much useful information as possible from each case they prosecute. Thus, if the "prosecution" model were used, each undocumented alien could be offered leniency in exchange for identifying the US employer who employed him or her. The government would be obliged to prosecute the employer companies, if for no reason other than efficiency. If you prosecute one alien, you yield results of only one case solved. If you prosecute and convict an employer, the chances are that you will yield multiple convictions and prevent many future violations.
As long as there are employers who are willing to break the law by hiring undocumented aliens, there will be incentives for aliens to enter this country illegally to find such work. Businesses that depend upon cheap labor for their profitability, and in some instances their survival, do not want the borders closed or the workers deported. Nor do these companies want to pay legally required minimum wages for the labor. Their solution is to illegally hire undocumented workers at wages well below the minimum required by law, workers who will never go to the authorities to complain of mistreatment. These companies are an important part of the GOP base, and find themselves in direct conflict with the "law & order" groups that oppose anything they call "amnesty." More fearful of these voting blocs than concerned about finding a practical, humane and feasible solution to the problem, Congressional representatives run for the cover of slogans in an election year.
Democrats have similar pressures, but appear to have been willing to stand by the compromise to which they publicly agreed. There may be some merit to the argument that Democrats would rather see only the GOP House Bill that criminalizes any activities that give aid and suppport, such as shelter, food and medical assistance, to undocumented aliens. That measure is so heinous that it has sparked the protest by hundreds of thousands of latinos and those who support humane treatment of undocumented aliens. It is an embarrasment to Congress and the Nation, and leaving it in the laps of GOP Representatives seeking re-election makes sense. Democrats did not have to make the effort to help the GOP through the Senate compromise. But they did so, and it is simply inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are responsible for the failure of the compromise measure.
As things now stand, the public is left in the lurch with a problem that requires courage and action from Congress.
“It’s not gone forward because there’s a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
However, the actual vote on the critical procedural step blocking amendments went along party lines. Democrats voted in favor and GOP members of the Senate voted against. Rhetoric aside, had the GOP majority truly wanted the compromise measure to go forward in the form agreed, it is quite clear that it would have done so. They hold the majority and there were more than enough Democrats supporting the procedural motion to block amendments to make up the 60 votes needed. The more probable explanation is that the GOP leadership obtained the agreement of its members with the promise that they would be able to weaken and undermine the compromise measure through amendments prior to passage. Alternatively, GOP Senators fraudulently indicated their support for the compromise while al the while intending to undermine the compromise with amendments. Perhaps if Bill Frist had the clout that Tom "the Hammer" Delay previously had in the House, the Senate GOP members would have been intimidated and disciplined to stay in line with the compromise accord. Politically, it would have been better in an election year for the Senate members to pass the compromise measure without amendments and then see it scuttled in the Conference Committee, because the Senate bill differs so much from the House measure.
The tragedy in this whole episode/saga is that a truly serious issue, deserving of serious thought and action, has been trivialized by a "Swift Boat" style jingoistic smear campaign. Provoked in large measure by bigotry and pseudo patriotic attitudes, these critics have labeled any pragmatic attempt to humanely address the very real problem of undocumented aliens who already live in this country [millions of them]. Their "law & order" strategy is to build a large double or triple fence across the US-Mexican border [note that no similar proposal has been put forward for the US -Canadian border] and deport all undocumented aliens immediately. Their talisman phrase is that there must be no "amnesty." Any proposal to legalize the status of these aliens is labeled "amnesty" and is therefore deemed unacceptable. They forget or ignore the fact that this "Law & Order" approach has failed miserably over the past two decades while the problem has worsened.
Whether granting amnesty is necessarily a bad thing could be debated. What they call "amnesty" is, in fact, done daily through prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system, and in granting asylum or making deportation prosecution decisions in the immigration system as well. But the staunch "patriotic" opponents of immigration reform shun civil and reasoned debate. In addition, there is a logical inconsistency in their - "they broke our laws, they must be punished" - approach to the problem. It is a flaw that opponents should be very careful to consider. In the criminal prosecution system, an accused is usually offered leniency for cooperation with authorities in finding and convicting other lawbreakers. Law enforcement usually seeks to gain as much useful information as possible from each case they prosecute. Thus, if the "prosecution" model were used, each undocumented alien could be offered leniency in exchange for identifying the US employer who employed him or her. The government would be obliged to prosecute the employer companies, if for no reason other than efficiency. If you prosecute one alien, you yield results of only one case solved. If you prosecute and convict an employer, the chances are that you will yield multiple convictions and prevent many future violations.
As long as there are employers who are willing to break the law by hiring undocumented aliens, there will be incentives for aliens to enter this country illegally to find such work. Businesses that depend upon cheap labor for their profitability, and in some instances their survival, do not want the borders closed or the workers deported. Nor do these companies want to pay legally required minimum wages for the labor. Their solution is to illegally hire undocumented workers at wages well below the minimum required by law, workers who will never go to the authorities to complain of mistreatment. These companies are an important part of the GOP base, and find themselves in direct conflict with the "law & order" groups that oppose anything they call "amnesty." More fearful of these voting blocs than concerned about finding a practical, humane and feasible solution to the problem, Congressional representatives run for the cover of slogans in an election year.
Democrats have similar pressures, but appear to have been willing to stand by the compromise to which they publicly agreed. There may be some merit to the argument that Democrats would rather see only the GOP House Bill that criminalizes any activities that give aid and suppport, such as shelter, food and medical assistance, to undocumented aliens. That measure is so heinous that it has sparked the protest by hundreds of thousands of latinos and those who support humane treatment of undocumented aliens. It is an embarrasment to Congress and the Nation, and leaving it in the laps of GOP Representatives seeking re-election makes sense. Democrats did not have to make the effort to help the GOP through the Senate compromise. But they did so, and it is simply inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are responsible for the failure of the compromise measure.
As things now stand, the public is left in the lurch with a problem that requires courage and action from Congress.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Scalia and the Gitmo Case: The Judicial Worm Turns?
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 innocense 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.
So the question is not really whether to give solicitous aid to those who are justly detained for having actually participated in combat activities 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. At the very least, Scalia should have the decency and ethical propriety to recuse himself from hearing and deciding a case upon which he has publicly declared his specific opinion on the relevant issues as the final briefs were filed and only a few weeks prior to the oral argument before the Supreme Court. [For those of you who are unaware, the Supreme Court Justices are supposed to appear impartial, even if they cannot actually BE impartial in cases before them.]
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 innocense 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.
So the question is not really whether to give solicitous aid to those who are justly detained for having actually participated in combat activities 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. At the very least, Scalia should have the decency and ethical propriety to recuse himself from hearing and deciding a case upon which he has publicly declared his specific opinion on the relevant issues as the final briefs were filed and only a few weeks prior to the oral argument before the Supreme Court. [For those of you who are unaware, the Supreme Court Justices are supposed to appear impartial, even if they cannot actually BE impartial in cases before them.]
Tom Delay : Valiant Rebel - or - Sociopath?
Tom Delay bowed out of the re-election campaign for his Congressional seat this fall. It may be a GOP strategy to attempt to campaign on a record of conduct that has resulted in criminal indictments on counts of money laundering and other deceitful crimes of moral turpitude. But a rational person would acknowledge that the behavior, even if he believed that criminal conviction is unlikely, raises sufficient questions of character and judgment to disqualify that person from high elective office. At the very least, one would step back and get the indictments resolved and return to political campaigning after being exonerated.
However, in the case of Tom Delay, one would not expect rational thought or action. Nor would the acknowledgement of the need to address legitimate concerns be uppermost in his mind. Delay's style of politics is that there is no such thing as right or wrong, legal or illegal. There is only winning and losing, successful strategy or defeated strategy. His opponents are "enemies" and not simply colleagues that have differing views or philosophies. This mindset is undoubtedly what got him into his current situation. But one has to accept that the public has tolerated, and possibly even encouraged, such amoral leadership. Delay has been cheered on and elected to Congressional leadership for his style of "take no prisoners" and "never take no for an answer" approach to party leadership and discipline. You either voted with Tom Delay or you were politically targeted for extinction. Huge amounts of money, regardless of the source, was amassed and distributed in exchange for voters and support. Former aides were positioned as infiltrators and watchdogs in influential lobbying organizations to make sure that the organizations gave kickbacks to Delay's regime and to assure that the compliant lobbying organizations got access and votes in return for their loyalty and monetary support.
As with any powerful organization built upon greed, intimidation and influence peddling, growth of the enterprise creates peril for the organization itself. When loyalty is born out of fear and distrust, or out of shady dealings, the "faithful" frequently seek any serious opportunity for control or revenge. When illegal activity is involved, it is nearly impossible to keep all the lies straight. Consequently, when a major player in such an organization is placed under intense scrutiny, as in a criminal indictment, the risk of subordinates turning "state's evidence" or "ratting out" their superiors becomes inevitable.
And this perhaps explains the timing of Delay's decision not to run for re-election and resign from Congress. A former chief aide has just entered into a plea bargain in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation of Delay and his confederates. Other associates have already cooperated, and it must have seemed inevitable to Delay that his intimidation and bullying tactics were not going to succeed in dismissal of the charges against him. So, by resigning and dropping out of the Congressional seat race, Delay can avoid public embarrassment and use his cache of campaign funds to pay his defense lawyers.
The public face of defiance that Delay is putting on is consistent with his mindset and public image. He probably believes that he has not engaged in, and indeed was not capable of," wrongdoing or illegal activity. Anyone challenging or accusing him of misconduct are just "poor losers" or left wing "liberals" who are only out to damage him politically. He must have a very difficult time thinking or listening to his attorneys’ advice that his behavior could be judges objectively to be unlawful. Since he has viewed himself as above the law, all this hubbub must seem very strange to a man like Tom Delay. If he goes down fighting, it will not be on the basis that his cause is "just." His defiance will be based upon his belief that he simply cannot lose, because the ends [his goals and objectives] justified any means used to achieve them.
However, in the case of Tom Delay, one would not expect rational thought or action. Nor would the acknowledgement of the need to address legitimate concerns be uppermost in his mind. Delay's style of politics is that there is no such thing as right or wrong, legal or illegal. There is only winning and losing, successful strategy or defeated strategy. His opponents are "enemies" and not simply colleagues that have differing views or philosophies. This mindset is undoubtedly what got him into his current situation. But one has to accept that the public has tolerated, and possibly even encouraged, such amoral leadership. Delay has been cheered on and elected to Congressional leadership for his style of "take no prisoners" and "never take no for an answer" approach to party leadership and discipline. You either voted with Tom Delay or you were politically targeted for extinction. Huge amounts of money, regardless of the source, was amassed and distributed in exchange for voters and support. Former aides were positioned as infiltrators and watchdogs in influential lobbying organizations to make sure that the organizations gave kickbacks to Delay's regime and to assure that the compliant lobbying organizations got access and votes in return for their loyalty and monetary support.
As with any powerful organization built upon greed, intimidation and influence peddling, growth of the enterprise creates peril for the organization itself. When loyalty is born out of fear and distrust, or out of shady dealings, the "faithful" frequently seek any serious opportunity for control or revenge. When illegal activity is involved, it is nearly impossible to keep all the lies straight. Consequently, when a major player in such an organization is placed under intense scrutiny, as in a criminal indictment, the risk of subordinates turning "state's evidence" or "ratting out" their superiors becomes inevitable.
And this perhaps explains the timing of Delay's decision not to run for re-election and resign from Congress. A former chief aide has just entered into a plea bargain in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation of Delay and his confederates. Other associates have already cooperated, and it must have seemed inevitable to Delay that his intimidation and bullying tactics were not going to succeed in dismissal of the charges against him. So, by resigning and dropping out of the Congressional seat race, Delay can avoid public embarrassment and use his cache of campaign funds to pay his defense lawyers.
The public face of defiance that Delay is putting on is consistent with his mindset and public image. He probably believes that he has not engaged in, and indeed was not capable of," wrongdoing or illegal activity. Anyone challenging or accusing him of misconduct are just "poor losers" or left wing "liberals" who are only out to damage him politically. He must have a very difficult time thinking or listening to his attorneys’ advice that his behavior could be judges objectively to be unlawful. Since he has viewed himself as above the law, all this hubbub must seem very strange to a man like Tom Delay. If he goes down fighting, it will not be on the basis that his cause is "just." His defiance will be based upon his belief that he simply cannot lose, because the ends [his goals and objectives] justified any means used to achieve them.
Libby: "Bush Personally Authorized Leaks in Plame Case"
Perhaps the most striking feature of today's Associated Press news report, that President Bush personally authorized leaking to the press information to discredit Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, is that it is anticlimactic. The breadth of duplicity, bad judgment and corruption within the Bush administration makes news of the President's direct involvement in those desperate dirty political shenanigans sound more like a firecracker than a bombshell. Most people who have analyzed the "outing" of covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame [Wilson's Wife], have opined that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove would not have engaged in leaking classified information to the press without direct authorization from their bosses. They were expected to fall on their swords like good martyrs to shield Bush and Cheney from responsibility when the lowly political dirty tricks they authorized came to light. But they are both too politically astute to engage in knowingly illegal actions without getting marching orders from the top.
One of the rules of playing cards is that you have to always remember that there is a joker in the deck. Perhaps Bush and Rove believed that they had full control of the Plame investigation. After all, Fitzgerald was not even a true "independent prosecutor." He was appointed by the Justice department under the President's control, so it was reasonable to expect two things. First that whoever was chosen would have political aspirations that would cause him or her to limit inquiries that got close to the President and his senior staff. Second, the investigator chosen would have sufficiently limited ethical standards that he would immediately back off when "advised " by the Bush White House that the investigation was getting into uncomfortable waters. But the investigator chosen turned out to be the joker in the deck. He is more concerned about doing his present job than worrying about what his next position might be. And he has followed the investigation carefully and tenaciously wherever it has led him, including what now appears to be the threshold of the Oval Office.
After being cast adrift by the White House, Scooter Libby ratted out his boss to the Federal Prosecutor. They say there is no honor among thieves, and I guess that the same goes for members of the cabal running the White House. The public facade of aggressive investigation and prosecution of the person(s) who leaked information about the President's illegal domestic spying program now seems pretty silly. Of course the President is entitled to take the paternal high horse approach and tell his subordinates "Do as I say, not as I do." But again, that approach is hardly the kind of inspiring leadership that commands the discipline and loyalty necessary to bind together the cadre of incompetent and corrupt functionaries that the President has surrounded himself with.
With the recent announcement of departures from White House senior staff, the problem of keeping a lid on and covering up the mistakes, incompetence and corruption that has characterized the Bush administration up to this point can only grow larger. With Delay heading for prison and Frist battling potential indictment himself, Congress can no longer be counted to back the President's moves and superficial explanations. In the past years, the GOP controlled Congress lapped up whatever Bush dished out, no matter how irrational or rife with cronyism and corruption. Representatives are now facing a mid term election, and being a mindless rubber stamp may not be as appealing to the constituents as it has appeared to be over the past five and one half years.
What is most disappointing is that members of Congress could have acted like competent seamen and taken the necessary measures to keep the Ship of State seaworthy. Instead, they have taken the approach of rats deserting a sinking ship.
One of the rules of playing cards is that you have to always remember that there is a joker in the deck. Perhaps Bush and Rove believed that they had full control of the Plame investigation. After all, Fitzgerald was not even a true "independent prosecutor." He was appointed by the Justice department under the President's control, so it was reasonable to expect two things. First that whoever was chosen would have political aspirations that would cause him or her to limit inquiries that got close to the President and his senior staff. Second, the investigator chosen would have sufficiently limited ethical standards that he would immediately back off when "advised " by the Bush White House that the investigation was getting into uncomfortable waters. But the investigator chosen turned out to be the joker in the deck. He is more concerned about doing his present job than worrying about what his next position might be. And he has followed the investigation carefully and tenaciously wherever it has led him, including what now appears to be the threshold of the Oval Office.
After being cast adrift by the White House, Scooter Libby ratted out his boss to the Federal Prosecutor. They say there is no honor among thieves, and I guess that the same goes for members of the cabal running the White House. The public facade of aggressive investigation and prosecution of the person(s) who leaked information about the President's illegal domestic spying program now seems pretty silly. Of course the President is entitled to take the paternal high horse approach and tell his subordinates "Do as I say, not as I do." But again, that approach is hardly the kind of inspiring leadership that commands the discipline and loyalty necessary to bind together the cadre of incompetent and corrupt functionaries that the President has surrounded himself with.
With the recent announcement of departures from White House senior staff, the problem of keeping a lid on and covering up the mistakes, incompetence and corruption that has characterized the Bush administration up to this point can only grow larger. With Delay heading for prison and Frist battling potential indictment himself, Congress can no longer be counted to back the President's moves and superficial explanations. In the past years, the GOP controlled Congress lapped up whatever Bush dished out, no matter how irrational or rife with cronyism and corruption. Representatives are now facing a mid term election, and being a mindless rubber stamp may not be as appealing to the constituents as it has appeared to be over the past five and one half years.
What is most disappointing is that members of Congress could have acted like competent seamen and taken the necessary measures to keep the Ship of State seaworthy. Instead, they have taken the approach of rats deserting a sinking ship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)