The job of carrying forward thoughtful analysis of the legislative and policy changes wrought by the G.W. Bush Administration and his accomplice, the GOP controlled Congress is not a glamorous one. Liken it to the job of a housing inspector roving about in dank basements in hostile weather to examine the foundations of a building. Based upon his findings, which may seem far from obvious to the average eye, he must persuade the present or prospective owners that the serious cracks in the foundation are likely to cause the building to crumble. Moreover, he may have to sound the alarm that repairs are immediately necessary to preserve the structure.
Such admonitions are brushed aside by Bush Administration supporters and GOP stalwarts as “political” sniping. While some criticisms obviously do have political motivations, others are simply the objective assessments of the "effects" resulting from "causes" put in motion by Congress and the President. In some cases, the public has been so distracted by the “spin” and “sound bite” media approach to policy used in politics today, that they fail to recognize the real world consequences that policies adopted have. The public is distracted by cynically advanced graphic images of potential “mushroom clouds” rising from nuclear weapons that Iran does not yet have, and Iraq was never close to obtaining. This demagoguery and fear mongering distracts attention from real world erosion of civil rights that are at the core of our democracy.
The Military Commissions Act pushed through last fall by the GOP Congress contained a provision that allowed detainees like those in Guantanamo Bay to have their cases considered by military commissions. That same Act stripped the US courts of their ability to hear cases by the detainees regarding the legality of their detention. A divided panel of the Federal Court in DC just issued a ruling, based upon a 2-1 majority opinion by two GOP appointed judges, that the MCA provision is valid and applies. Unless the ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court [now containing Bush appointees Alito and Chief Justice Roberts], the Bush Administration can do whatever it likes to non-citizens as long as they are off shore. And the top lawyer for the administration has written an opinion that the Geneva Conventions do not even apply.
Keep in mind that the law now provides that the only recourse a detainee who has been labeled an “enemy combatant” [correctly or not] now has is to a military panel answerable only to the Executive Branch authority that made the decision to imprison the detainee in the first place. The primary motivations of such a panel would be to affirm the decision on detention, and to avoid embarrassment to the chain of command and the Administration. The rights of the detainee would fall far below these top priorities. There is no recourse to an independent judiciary whose duty is to uphold the US Constitution, our laws and our system of justice.
This serious crack in the foundation of our system of justice has not gone without notice:
A spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was accelerating efforts to pass a revision to the law that would restore detainees' legal rights, noting that some 12 million lawful permanent residents currently in the U.S. could also be stripped of rights. The new provision, introduced by Leahy and then-Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., narrowly failed last year on a 48-51 vote.
"The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness," Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement. [Associated Press – Feb 20, 2007]
The damage that has been done to our democracy and to our system of justice, the very foundation upon which this country was built, lies not only in the blatant public gestures like pre-emptive war and assaults on the environment. There is very serious damage done by insidious measures that undercut and erode the principles we have relied upon for centuries. The right of Habeas Corpus, after all, was a primary spark for the rebellion against King George IV of England. We have a social compact among Americans that imprisonment can only be for good cause, and that the government must be able to show probable cause if it wishes to continue to hold someone for a suspected crime.
According to the DC Circuit Court, that is no longer a bedrock principle of our country. A permanent resident can be erroneously labeled as an enemy combatant, based upon mistaken or deliberately falsified information, and be held in prison in Guantanamo Bay, or one of the extraordinary rendition secret prisons under US control around the world, for an indefinite period. There is not even a right to challenge the detention on the basis of mistaken identity in a court of law. It may be America, but it certainly does not sound like the “Land of Liberty” of which we teach our children to sing. And unless we take steps promptly to repair the damage, the entire structure is at risk of collapsing.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Burn, Baby Burn!
Caveat Emptor! Beware! Hot Topic!
--- Anyone who is allergic or has a strong aversion to reality and factual evidence should stop now and read no further. Bush Administration officials and apologists for the Administration Environmental and Energy policies should proceed with extreme caution.
The scientific evidence continues to mount in support of the increasing momentum of the earth toward the ecological tipping point resulting from global warming. The recent consensus report of the entire scientific community has taken us past the point of argument whether global warming is in progress and that the activities of humans on the planet is significantly contributing to the deterioration of environmental balance. The topics of serious discussion [apologies to the nattering nabobs of the George W. Bush Anti-science Society] has turned to questions of how quickly the deterioration is progressing and what steps can be taken to slow down or reverse the trend. Recent scientific reports of Earth temperature measurements do not provide much comfort or cause for celebration.
According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., the world’s land areas were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January. That increase broke the old record set in 2002 by 0.81 degrees, which meteorologists said is a lot. Land temperature records often are broken by only hundredths of a degree at a time. The scientists issuing the report went beyond their normal double-checking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models “just to make sure that what we’re seeing was real,” Data Center Official Easterling said.
The temperature of the world’s land and water combined — the most effective measurement of global temperature for comparative purposes — was 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal. This increase broke the old record by more than one-quarter of a degree. Ocean temperatures alone didn’t set a record.
These developments are of concern because they represent dramatic departures from the expected rate of change based upon older and traditional models. Some scientists have expressed concern that the global warming phenomenon is more like a stone rolling down a hill than a gradual linear process. As change occurs, these changes stimulate other changes exponentially or at least logarithmically as the process picks up momentum. One such discovery was the hydraulic collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica. Rather than the expected erosion of the ice from the edges of the sea, water melting on the surface of the shelf drills down to bedrock and creates a layer of water that allows large chunks of the ice shelf to slide off into the sea. This process results in a much quicker loss of ice mass than was previously predicted.
The cumulative effect of many such “anomalies” could be creating the global increase in temperature that has yielded four of the highest annual temperatures ever recorded [measurements began in the 1880’s] in the past five years. One does not need to be an environmental scientist [with rocket design competence] to recognize that this information points to a dangerous trend. While it may not be clear what all the alternatives and corrective measures are, it seems quite obvious that sitting around denying that the problem exists is not an intelligent strategy. More than likely, as with most environmental and energy related issues, the response will have to be comprised of a combination of measures adopted on a global basis. After all, that is how the problem was created.
American leadership seems intent upon allowing the situation to continue to degrade until the planet becomes a living hell. While we may politely invite them to go to that address, we can act more rationally. No individual effort will resolve the coming crisis, it will take a true grass roots effort. We can start to combine our efforts and modify our behaviors to keep from making the situation worse.
--- Anyone who is allergic or has a strong aversion to reality and factual evidence should stop now and read no further. Bush Administration officials and apologists for the Administration Environmental and Energy policies should proceed with extreme caution.
The scientific evidence continues to mount in support of the increasing momentum of the earth toward the ecological tipping point resulting from global warming. The recent consensus report of the entire scientific community has taken us past the point of argument whether global warming is in progress and that the activities of humans on the planet is significantly contributing to the deterioration of environmental balance. The topics of serious discussion [apologies to the nattering nabobs of the George W. Bush Anti-science Society] has turned to questions of how quickly the deterioration is progressing and what steps can be taken to slow down or reverse the trend. Recent scientific reports of Earth temperature measurements do not provide much comfort or cause for celebration.
According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., the world’s land areas were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January. That increase broke the old record set in 2002 by 0.81 degrees, which meteorologists said is a lot. Land temperature records often are broken by only hundredths of a degree at a time. The scientists issuing the report went beyond their normal double-checking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models “just to make sure that what we’re seeing was real,” Data Center Official Easterling said.
The temperature of the world’s land and water combined — the most effective measurement of global temperature for comparative purposes — was 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal. This increase broke the old record by more than one-quarter of a degree. Ocean temperatures alone didn’t set a record.
These developments are of concern because they represent dramatic departures from the expected rate of change based upon older and traditional models. Some scientists have expressed concern that the global warming phenomenon is more like a stone rolling down a hill than a gradual linear process. As change occurs, these changes stimulate other changes exponentially or at least logarithmically as the process picks up momentum. One such discovery was the hydraulic collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica. Rather than the expected erosion of the ice from the edges of the sea, water melting on the surface of the shelf drills down to bedrock and creates a layer of water that allows large chunks of the ice shelf to slide off into the sea. This process results in a much quicker loss of ice mass than was previously predicted.
The cumulative effect of many such “anomalies” could be creating the global increase in temperature that has yielded four of the highest annual temperatures ever recorded [measurements began in the 1880’s] in the past five years. One does not need to be an environmental scientist [with rocket design competence] to recognize that this information points to a dangerous trend. While it may not be clear what all the alternatives and corrective measures are, it seems quite obvious that sitting around denying that the problem exists is not an intelligent strategy. More than likely, as with most environmental and energy related issues, the response will have to be comprised of a combination of measures adopted on a global basis. After all, that is how the problem was created.
American leadership seems intent upon allowing the situation to continue to degrade until the planet becomes a living hell. While we may politely invite them to go to that address, we can act more rationally. No individual effort will resolve the coming crisis, it will take a true grass roots effort. We can start to combine our efforts and modify our behaviors to keep from making the situation worse.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Further Costs of Fear
The omnipresence of fear in the United States continues to take a toll on the psyche of the American people. Each day we are reminded of 9/11 and that we are at some indefinable, unquantifiable and inexplicable level of risk that another terrorist attack will occur. This message has been so effectively broadcast and pounded into the consciousness of Americans that even the corner drug store owner in Ottumwa, Iowa lives in fear of an imminent attack unless the Department of Homeland Security is vigilant. At every airport in the nation, we are reminded that the DHS [ an acronym which some of us recall used to represent the Department of Health and Human Services…how times have changed!] has declared a state of orange alert.” There are apparently four levels, with the risk of attack increasing in each step: green, yellow, orange and red. One might question the precision, if not the competence of a system that has had a constant orange alert in every city for more than two years. After all, it would be hard to imagine that New York City and Fargo, ND, have the same risk of attack. But in these times, it may even be against the law to disparage the national security apparatus. So by way of disclaimer, I am SURE that the DHS is doing the best job they know how to do to protect the American people.
But the system of fear has other costs. The head of the Central Bank in Argentina stated in a speech this week that more than 200 corresponding Latin American banks have switched their cash transactions to Europe because of the extensive regulations imposed by the Bush Administration to trace possible transactions relating to persons or organizations which could lead to potential support of terrorists. These restrictions and trade barriers have made the increased cost of doing business with US banks unattractive. This is another example of how the climate of paranoia or fear (depending upon whether one has blind faith in the Administration’s claims of terrorist threats in the US), has unseen costs to the American economy and makes the US less competitive in the global marketplace. The United States is becoming an increasingly less attractive destination for tourists. This may be a result of a combination of the climate of fear and the generalized decline of respect and admiration of this country around the world. In any event, it represents an economic loss. Common sense would dictate that an analysis of the need and effectiveness of all these security measures and barriers to economic activity.
In the current climate, we are fed generalized exhortations daily to beware of “terrorists.” We are reminded that we are at "war with terror." We are told that any laxity in our vigilance or failure to fight the terrorists would be devastating. We are never advised of any specific threats or of any actual terrorist plots or cells in the US that the DHS has effectively disrupted. We are not given any specific information that would support the notion that the entire nation needs to be constantly on Orange Alert. The excuse, of course, is that revealing such information would endanger national security. The logic of how the release of information about an actual success story of intervention that occurred six months ago or more would undermine national security is obscure, at best. In fact, knowledge that all these constraints are actually accomplishing something concrete would conceivably build confidence and tolerance in the public.
However, we are given nothing concrete to hold onto. Nothing, that is, except fear. And we are repeatedly told that our greatest fear should be not being afraid.
But the system of fear has other costs. The head of the Central Bank in Argentina stated in a speech this week that more than 200 corresponding Latin American banks have switched their cash transactions to Europe because of the extensive regulations imposed by the Bush Administration to trace possible transactions relating to persons or organizations which could lead to potential support of terrorists. These restrictions and trade barriers have made the increased cost of doing business with US banks unattractive. This is another example of how the climate of paranoia or fear (depending upon whether one has blind faith in the Administration’s claims of terrorist threats in the US), has unseen costs to the American economy and makes the US less competitive in the global marketplace. The United States is becoming an increasingly less attractive destination for tourists. This may be a result of a combination of the climate of fear and the generalized decline of respect and admiration of this country around the world. In any event, it represents an economic loss. Common sense would dictate that an analysis of the need and effectiveness of all these security measures and barriers to economic activity.
In the current climate, we are fed generalized exhortations daily to beware of “terrorists.” We are reminded that we are at "war with terror." We are told that any laxity in our vigilance or failure to fight the terrorists would be devastating. We are never advised of any specific threats or of any actual terrorist plots or cells in the US that the DHS has effectively disrupted. We are not given any specific information that would support the notion that the entire nation needs to be constantly on Orange Alert. The excuse, of course, is that revealing such information would endanger national security. The logic of how the release of information about an actual success story of intervention that occurred six months ago or more would undermine national security is obscure, at best. In fact, knowledge that all these constraints are actually accomplishing something concrete would conceivably build confidence and tolerance in the public.
However, we are given nothing concrete to hold onto. Nothing, that is, except fear. And we are repeatedly told that our greatest fear should be not being afraid.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Read 'Em And Weep
In the game of Poker, it is not necessarily the hand that has the greatest value that controls the table a player with a worthless position may control the bidding through arrogance and bluffing. Disaster can result when that player’s bluff is called and his hand is shown to lack merit. While timid Senators and Representatives in Congress speculate and haggle over rather insignificant semantics in wording a symbolic resolution of disapproval of the Bush Admiinistration troop buildup in Iraq, the White House is busy planning another catastrophe, a pre-emptive attack on Iran.
The leadership of the Bush Administration taken the country into the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which the country is now deeply mired. The stakes have been raised to one half Trillion dollars, more than 3000 US soldier deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed. Not satisfied with one major fiasco, the President and Vice President are now determined to risk what would likely be a regional, if not global, war with nuclear ramifications. Common sense and a prudent sense of survival would require of our Congress to take forceful and deliberate action to curb the mad excesses of the Bush Administration. The squabbling over the Iraq resolution wording is, in context, silly and trivial.
A responsible Congress would acknowledge the documented fact that Congress was misled in authorizing the invasion, and would also make a formal finding that the purported justifications for the authorization to use military force do not exist. Thus, Congress could rescind the authority and require Bush to seek new authority to continue the occupation, based upon the situation that actually exists. At the same time, a responsible Congress should attach riders to the current budget that prohibit use of funds for any pre-emptive military strike without express approval from Congress. But we do not seem to have a responsible Congress. And in the current game of “Texas Hold-em” all the public can do is “read them and weep.” Consider carefully the following article published today in the United Kingdom newspaper:
US Able To Strike in The Spring
By Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian UK
Saturday 10 February 2007
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced.
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr. Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr. Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr. Bush had not yet made a decision…….
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."
He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."
The leadership of the Bush Administration taken the country into the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which the country is now deeply mired. The stakes have been raised to one half Trillion dollars, more than 3000 US soldier deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed. Not satisfied with one major fiasco, the President and Vice President are now determined to risk what would likely be a regional, if not global, war with nuclear ramifications. Common sense and a prudent sense of survival would require of our Congress to take forceful and deliberate action to curb the mad excesses of the Bush Administration. The squabbling over the Iraq resolution wording is, in context, silly and trivial.
A responsible Congress would acknowledge the documented fact that Congress was misled in authorizing the invasion, and would also make a formal finding that the purported justifications for the authorization to use military force do not exist. Thus, Congress could rescind the authority and require Bush to seek new authority to continue the occupation, based upon the situation that actually exists. At the same time, a responsible Congress should attach riders to the current budget that prohibit use of funds for any pre-emptive military strike without express approval from Congress. But we do not seem to have a responsible Congress. And in the current game of “Texas Hold-em” all the public can do is “read them and weep.” Consider carefully the following article published today in the United Kingdom newspaper:
US Able To Strike in The Spring
By Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian UK
Saturday 10 February 2007
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced.
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr. Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr. Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr. Bush had not yet made a decision…….
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."
He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Let Freedom Cringe
Aboard a Concord Trailways bus this morning from Manchester, New Hampshire, to Boston, we were delayed while two men boarded and announced that they were immigration agents checking to determine whether passengers had the appropriate papers for travel. These men were not dressed in any official uniform and wore no badges or insignia confirming any actual authority. [I later learned from the Bus driver that one of the men had discretely shown him a badge out of the view of the passengers.] As the two men walked down the aisle, they spoke to a couple of passengers who identified themselves as non-citizens who are legal residents. In both instances, the passengers did not have their actual green cards on their person. These passengers were chided that it is against the law to travel in the US as a permanent legal resident without carrying your official documents on your person. I do not doubt, in these days and times, that they accurately stated the law. I confess that I was not aware of that particular constraint, even with 30 years of legal training and experience.
In over 50 years of traveling about the country, I have never before been aboard a public transportation vehicle that was detained by immigration agents for inspection of papers. These agents did not request the papers of every passenger. Each passenger was required to furnish a picture ID in order to purchase a ticket. It was clear, however, that the agents were not referring to any list or manifest as they conducted their inspection. The agents then departed and the bus departed from the station.
The experience left me with two very different impressions. The first and most immediate impression was a sense of how a non-US citizen, who is legally entitled to be in the US and to travel, must feel these days when traveling in this country. I recognized that the experience might be discomfiting to a visitor on a travel visa, despite the fact that such shows of authority have never seemed necessary prior to the World Trade Center attack. But it had not previously occurred to me that individuals who have a permanent resident status or are naturalized are now subject to the same interdiction. The feeling was one of palpable tension, and all conversation on the bus stopped and remained completely quiet until the men left the bus. There was some discussion afterward about why they inspected the bus and why they did not check the identification of every passenger.
The second impression was that I have traveled about the world, including recent trips to Venezuela, Mexico and Fiji, and not been stopped and asked for my identification papers. In travels to these countries, there was never a scarcity of police or official presence in public places. And I have in fact approached such police for assistance in locating a place or finding something I needed. Not one of these encounters felt intimidating or made me feel unwelcome. Of course, a passport has been requested when checking into a hotel and to support a credit card purchase.
I have never been stopped and questioned about my freedom to travel, even in these countries that have been portrayed by the US government and the US mainstream media as somewhat dangerous or subversive. Fiji and México have had tumultuous changes of government, and the enmity between George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez is now legendary. Yet in none of these countries was I ever made to feel that the governments did not want me to be in their country, or that they were worried about my presence there.
In fact, my only other truly negative experience also occurred in the United States. Returning on a flight from Jamaica with my ex wife [who is Caucasian] and children, I was detained by US Customs agents who apparently thought that I [who am Black and Native American] might be trying to get into the country illegally. I had shown the agents a valid passport, even though only a driver’s license or birth certificate had typically been required at the time. I believe that experience was motivated by rather blatant racial discrimination more than the “national security” concerns that currently seem to underlie these shows of authority today. [We could also discuss the potential ethnic and religious discrimination behind these "national security"policies in another piece.]
The topping on this delicacy of a travel experience was a conversation overheard while passing through the security checkpoint at the airport. The agents were talking among themselves in a normal and matter of fact tone, as employees typically do to pass the time when there is no rush of passengers. One agent, obviously new to the job, stated to another that he was glad that the security job with TSA had come through. He said that he had tried and could not get a job at McDonalds. While I do not frequent McDonalds, primarily because of health and nutritional concerns, I would not disparage the employees who work in those fast food establishments. However, it was more than a little disconcerting to hear that the rigorous standards applied to the officials in whose hands the protection of our "national security" has been placed is below the hiring standards for a fast food restaurant that requires no training or experience.
This is still supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but when I think of how our freedom is being trampled and treated with such carelessness and disregard, I cannot help but cringe a little.
In over 50 years of traveling about the country, I have never before been aboard a public transportation vehicle that was detained by immigration agents for inspection of papers. These agents did not request the papers of every passenger. Each passenger was required to furnish a picture ID in order to purchase a ticket. It was clear, however, that the agents were not referring to any list or manifest as they conducted their inspection. The agents then departed and the bus departed from the station.
The experience left me with two very different impressions. The first and most immediate impression was a sense of how a non-US citizen, who is legally entitled to be in the US and to travel, must feel these days when traveling in this country. I recognized that the experience might be discomfiting to a visitor on a travel visa, despite the fact that such shows of authority have never seemed necessary prior to the World Trade Center attack. But it had not previously occurred to me that individuals who have a permanent resident status or are naturalized are now subject to the same interdiction. The feeling was one of palpable tension, and all conversation on the bus stopped and remained completely quiet until the men left the bus. There was some discussion afterward about why they inspected the bus and why they did not check the identification of every passenger.
The second impression was that I have traveled about the world, including recent trips to Venezuela, Mexico and Fiji, and not been stopped and asked for my identification papers. In travels to these countries, there was never a scarcity of police or official presence in public places. And I have in fact approached such police for assistance in locating a place or finding something I needed. Not one of these encounters felt intimidating or made me feel unwelcome. Of course, a passport has been requested when checking into a hotel and to support a credit card purchase.
I have never been stopped and questioned about my freedom to travel, even in these countries that have been portrayed by the US government and the US mainstream media as somewhat dangerous or subversive. Fiji and México have had tumultuous changes of government, and the enmity between George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez is now legendary. Yet in none of these countries was I ever made to feel that the governments did not want me to be in their country, or that they were worried about my presence there.
In fact, my only other truly negative experience also occurred in the United States. Returning on a flight from Jamaica with my ex wife [who is Caucasian] and children, I was detained by US Customs agents who apparently thought that I [who am Black and Native American] might be trying to get into the country illegally. I had shown the agents a valid passport, even though only a driver’s license or birth certificate had typically been required at the time. I believe that experience was motivated by rather blatant racial discrimination more than the “national security” concerns that currently seem to underlie these shows of authority today. [We could also discuss the potential ethnic and religious discrimination behind these "national security"policies in another piece.]
The topping on this delicacy of a travel experience was a conversation overheard while passing through the security checkpoint at the airport. The agents were talking among themselves in a normal and matter of fact tone, as employees typically do to pass the time when there is no rush of passengers. One agent, obviously new to the job, stated to another that he was glad that the security job with TSA had come through. He said that he had tried and could not get a job at McDonalds. While I do not frequent McDonalds, primarily because of health and nutritional concerns, I would not disparage the employees who work in those fast food establishments. However, it was more than a little disconcerting to hear that the rigorous standards applied to the officials in whose hands the protection of our "national security" has been placed is below the hiring standards for a fast food restaurant that requires no training or experience.
This is still supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but when I think of how our freedom is being trampled and treated with such carelessness and disregard, I cannot help but cringe a little.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Attack of the "Lite Brites"
The opportunity to comment upon the recent panic and over reaction of the Boston officials to the guerilla advertising campaign stunt is too much to pass up. Small devices that resembled enlarged "Lite Brite" [a children's toy] pictures of a character on a Cartoon Network program caused hours of dislocation and near panic when Boston officials declared a terrorist alert, apparently believing that the devices were potential bombs. Similar devices have up in public places for up to three weeks in ten different cities, but Boston was the only one where serious reaction was registered. In other cities, the marketing devices were viewed as perhaps juvenile, but not dangerous. Closer examination of the devices readily revealed that they were not bombs and posed no threat to public safety. The danger that did result was from the official reaction.
Therein lies the issue that should concern us. It would be too easy to ridicule the Boston police for their "chicken little" response to an innocuous piece of marketing junk. The real concern is the level of public paranoia that has been cultivated and fostered over a supposed threat of a terrorist attack. We are in the midst of a culture of fearmongering in which we are constantly reminded to fear and distrust everyone in public and to worry about a terrorist attack wherever we go. In such an atmosphere, it is not surprising that the Boston police would overreact.
Most of us recall the argument between the Sheriff and the town Mayor in the movie "Jaws" over whether to alert the public to the threat of a shark attack. The same debate was portrayed more recently in the movie "Deep Impact." where a comet threatened the earth. The issue is the responsibility of officials to investigate and try to eliminate a potential threat to public safety before sounding a public alert that may cause widespread panic and injury. It seems, however, that the public has been in a state of "orange" or "red" alert for the past four years. It is long past time to examine whether this is a healthy situation that should continue.
The public was not whipped into the current level of hysteria in a "post Oklahoma City" world. But now the Department of Homeland Security justifies curtailing civil liberties and the constant fearmongering about a terrorist attack with the excuse that we now live in a "post 9/11" world. There have been terrorist attacks around the world, both before and after the attack on the World Trade Center. They have ranged from politically motivated bombings to schoolyard massacres. And yet all this investment in "Homeland Security" has not made us demonstrably any safer than before 9/11. Indeed, experts in the field have opined that the Iraq occupation and "war on terror" have actually made us less safe. By effectively declaring open war on an ethnic group [Arabs] and a religion [Islam], the Bush Administration has baited extremists. The destabilization of Iraq has increased the ability of terrorist groups to hide out in Iraq.
The sad reality is that the fearmongering is a political tool being cynically used to maintain leverage on the issue of "national security." There is, in fact, no appreciably greater threat to the United States now than before the 9/11 attack. By positing an amorphous "enemy" of "terrorism," which is a tactic and not a definable target, the Bush Administration has created an omnipresent "Boogieman" to put us all in fear. Worst of all, this deception has been supported by outright lies. We are told that to fight this "terror" that is embodied by Al Qaeda, we must invade and occupy Iraq. The facts we now know, are that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and that Al Qaeda was not functioning in or sponsored by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
America needs to wake up. There are threats of crime and violence, and they will continue to exist. Improved technology and police agency cooperation using traditionally developed and constitutionally sanctioned methods have and will continue to help maintain public security without destroying the foundations of a free and democratic society. Through these means we can respond rationally and effectively to real threats. But if we continue in dazed hysteria and induced fear regarding imagined threats, the result will not only be the trampling of our civil rights, but the literal and physical trampling of citizens in a public panic attack. The Boston experience should be a wake up call.
Therein lies the issue that should concern us. It would be too easy to ridicule the Boston police for their "chicken little" response to an innocuous piece of marketing junk. The real concern is the level of public paranoia that has been cultivated and fostered over a supposed threat of a terrorist attack. We are in the midst of a culture of fearmongering in which we are constantly reminded to fear and distrust everyone in public and to worry about a terrorist attack wherever we go. In such an atmosphere, it is not surprising that the Boston police would overreact.
Most of us recall the argument between the Sheriff and the town Mayor in the movie "Jaws" over whether to alert the public to the threat of a shark attack. The same debate was portrayed more recently in the movie "Deep Impact." where a comet threatened the earth. The issue is the responsibility of officials to investigate and try to eliminate a potential threat to public safety before sounding a public alert that may cause widespread panic and injury. It seems, however, that the public has been in a state of "orange" or "red" alert for the past four years. It is long past time to examine whether this is a healthy situation that should continue.
The public was not whipped into the current level of hysteria in a "post Oklahoma City" world. But now the Department of Homeland Security justifies curtailing civil liberties and the constant fearmongering about a terrorist attack with the excuse that we now live in a "post 9/11" world. There have been terrorist attacks around the world, both before and after the attack on the World Trade Center. They have ranged from politically motivated bombings to schoolyard massacres. And yet all this investment in "Homeland Security" has not made us demonstrably any safer than before 9/11. Indeed, experts in the field have opined that the Iraq occupation and "war on terror" have actually made us less safe. By effectively declaring open war on an ethnic group [Arabs] and a religion [Islam], the Bush Administration has baited extremists. The destabilization of Iraq has increased the ability of terrorist groups to hide out in Iraq.
The sad reality is that the fearmongering is a political tool being cynically used to maintain leverage on the issue of "national security." There is, in fact, no appreciably greater threat to the United States now than before the 9/11 attack. By positing an amorphous "enemy" of "terrorism," which is a tactic and not a definable target, the Bush Administration has created an omnipresent "Boogieman" to put us all in fear. Worst of all, this deception has been supported by outright lies. We are told that to fight this "terror" that is embodied by Al Qaeda, we must invade and occupy Iraq. The facts we now know, are that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and that Al Qaeda was not functioning in or sponsored by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
America needs to wake up. There are threats of crime and violence, and they will continue to exist. Improved technology and police agency cooperation using traditionally developed and constitutionally sanctioned methods have and will continue to help maintain public security without destroying the foundations of a free and democratic society. Through these means we can respond rationally and effectively to real threats. But if we continue in dazed hysteria and induced fear regarding imagined threats, the result will not only be the trampling of our civil rights, but the literal and physical trampling of citizens in a public panic attack. The Boston experience should be a wake up call.
“Bold” Rhetoric about Iraq
We have been hearing that a proposed Senate resolution opposing the White House plan to deploy thousands more troops in Iraq will “embolden the enemy.” To most sentient beings, this rhetoric is empty sloganeering and base demagoguery. To those willing to base opinion on facts, the argument is irrational and silly. After all, General John Abizaid testified last November before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had surveyed all Generals and all the field commanders agreed that the proposed “surge” of additional troops in Baghdad was not the answer to the current sectarian violence. So if there was any message that would give heart to the “enemy,” it would be the decision of the President to go forward with a strategy that his field commanders believe is futile. In all fairness and logic, would you give greater respect and deference to the strategic battlefield judgment of career soldiers with decades of experience and direct responsibility and experience in theater, or to a president who has never experienced real active duty military service or directed a successful military campaign?
And what does “embolden the enemy” really mean? The “enemy” needs to be defined in this situation. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki stated publicly in December his opposition to a US troop build up. Is the Iraqi Prime Minister, upon whom Bush rests major responsibility for success of this plan, the “enemy?” Shiite and Sunni leaders in the Iraqi government want the US troops out of Iraq. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are less vocal, but they too have indicated that the solution to the current crisis must be an internal one, rather than something imposed by a foreign power. Are the Iraqi people from all religious and ethnic sectors the “enemy” Bush does not want to embolden? Reasonably reliable reports from Iraq suggest primary Al Qaeda activity in the Anbar Province, rather than Baghdad where the troop “surge” is to be focused. So Al Qaeda would not be emboldened by opposition to the “surge” plan. In fact, Al Qaeda would probably want the US to divert and deplete resources in areas where they are not active. Al Qaeda would be more emboldened by going forward with the Bush plan, and not by opposition to it. Bush seems to have no clear idea who the “enemy” is, much less why or how that “enemy” would be emboldened by opposition to the troop increase.
White House rhetoric branding anyone dissenting from the Bush Administration strategy as unpatriotic and disloyal to American troopsis reprehensible and undemocratic. Moreover, the claim of "emboldening the enemy" makes no practical sense. Our soldiers in Iraq already have gotten the message that the “Decider” directing this mission is largely incompetent, and that there is no realistic hope for a military solution. Reports from the field [see reports in Army Times and other military periodicals] suggest that troop morale is low because of a belief that those directing the US mission [i.e the Bush Administration] have lost touch with reality and have no clear idea of what US troops are supposed to accomplish. In addition, many who are in Iraq, and those who have served there, believe that the “Iraqi Freedom Mission” has been so poorly managed that it is now beyond retrieval. Refusals of career military personnel to deploy in a war that they believe is illegal, immoral and futile, and the public court martial prosecution of these individuals demonstrate the deep level of disconnect between the white House and the troops. Iraq war veterans state publicly that they believe sending more troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war is more demoralizing to troops than any debate in the Congress.
To advance a modest suggestion, the problem is not with a symbolic Senate resolution opposing the troop surge. That measure will have virtually no impact upon a President who is more concerned about doing “his” thing than about doing the “right” thing. Appeals to logic and common sense have been futile. A "resolution" warning him not to go forward will only strengthen his resolve to do as he pleases, like an oppositional child. The problem lies in the continued failure of Congress to act responsibly within their constitutional powers and duty to curtail the authority and discretion of a President who is steering this country on a disastrous course.
When the GOP controlled Congress and the White House, it was deplorable but understandable why Congress did nothing to curb the excesses of the Bush Administration. But the public declared very loudly in the November mid-term election that it wanted to change that dynamic. So far, the new Congress seems so defensive and caught up in diversionary White House rhetoric that they have ignored the reasons why they were elected. The additional lives unnecessarily lost and the money that will be wasted by the Bush Administration, until Congress acts to change the course this country is on, will be the real tragedy. What the country needs, and what will truly dishearten the genuine enemies of this nation is true leadership that will stand up to Bush and assert a rational strategy that can unify rather than divide the people of this country and stop squandering the resources, respect and good will of America. Sadly, quibbling over the semantics of a symbolic resolution does not constitute such leadership.
And what does “embolden the enemy” really mean? The “enemy” needs to be defined in this situation. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki stated publicly in December his opposition to a US troop build up. Is the Iraqi Prime Minister, upon whom Bush rests major responsibility for success of this plan, the “enemy?” Shiite and Sunni leaders in the Iraqi government want the US troops out of Iraq. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are less vocal, but they too have indicated that the solution to the current crisis must be an internal one, rather than something imposed by a foreign power. Are the Iraqi people from all religious and ethnic sectors the “enemy” Bush does not want to embolden? Reasonably reliable reports from Iraq suggest primary Al Qaeda activity in the Anbar Province, rather than Baghdad where the troop “surge” is to be focused. So Al Qaeda would not be emboldened by opposition to the “surge” plan. In fact, Al Qaeda would probably want the US to divert and deplete resources in areas where they are not active. Al Qaeda would be more emboldened by going forward with the Bush plan, and not by opposition to it. Bush seems to have no clear idea who the “enemy” is, much less why or how that “enemy” would be emboldened by opposition to the troop increase.
White House rhetoric branding anyone dissenting from the Bush Administration strategy as unpatriotic and disloyal to American troopsis reprehensible and undemocratic. Moreover, the claim of "emboldening the enemy" makes no practical sense. Our soldiers in Iraq already have gotten the message that the “Decider” directing this mission is largely incompetent, and that there is no realistic hope for a military solution. Reports from the field [see reports in Army Times and other military periodicals] suggest that troop morale is low because of a belief that those directing the US mission [i.e the Bush Administration] have lost touch with reality and have no clear idea of what US troops are supposed to accomplish. In addition, many who are in Iraq, and those who have served there, believe that the “Iraqi Freedom Mission” has been so poorly managed that it is now beyond retrieval. Refusals of career military personnel to deploy in a war that they believe is illegal, immoral and futile, and the public court martial prosecution of these individuals demonstrate the deep level of disconnect between the white House and the troops. Iraq war veterans state publicly that they believe sending more troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war is more demoralizing to troops than any debate in the Congress.
To advance a modest suggestion, the problem is not with a symbolic Senate resolution opposing the troop surge. That measure will have virtually no impact upon a President who is more concerned about doing “his” thing than about doing the “right” thing. Appeals to logic and common sense have been futile. A "resolution" warning him not to go forward will only strengthen his resolve to do as he pleases, like an oppositional child. The problem lies in the continued failure of Congress to act responsibly within their constitutional powers and duty to curtail the authority and discretion of a President who is steering this country on a disastrous course.
When the GOP controlled Congress and the White House, it was deplorable but understandable why Congress did nothing to curb the excesses of the Bush Administration. But the public declared very loudly in the November mid-term election that it wanted to change that dynamic. So far, the new Congress seems so defensive and caught up in diversionary White House rhetoric that they have ignored the reasons why they were elected. The additional lives unnecessarily lost and the money that will be wasted by the Bush Administration, until Congress acts to change the course this country is on, will be the real tragedy. What the country needs, and what will truly dishearten the genuine enemies of this nation is true leadership that will stand up to Bush and assert a rational strategy that can unify rather than divide the people of this country and stop squandering the resources, respect and good will of America. Sadly, quibbling over the semantics of a symbolic resolution does not constitute such leadership.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Way Forward? – Take a Step Backward
“A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.” By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus;
The official word is in; the situation in Iraq is in dire straits. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, we may hope the report will put an end to the absurd commentary by Vice President Cheney painting a rosy picture of the conflict and the bright prospects of “winning.” There will be no effective progress toward a solution to the tragic situation in Iraq until the Administration and Congress are able to step back and obtain a realistic perspective of the actual situation in Iraq. This is made substantially more difficult by circumstances that foster disinformation. The previous attacks, including assaults by US forces, upon reporters operating as embedded and independentjournalists has drastically choked the flow of information regarding the situation on the ground. Moreover, the Bush Administration treatment and censorship of embedded journalists has discouraged such reporting efforts and undermined public confidence in such reports as well. Indeed, the more reliable reports about the Iraqi situation now come from foreign journalists and reporters for Arab and independent news organizations operating in the Mid East Region.
Another important piece of information in the National Intelligence Estimate is the identification of the primary risks and obstacles to improvement of the situation. "Corruption"is one central factor. ” This factor has many dimensions, but the impact is largely the same. It undermines the confidence that can rationally be placed in any proposal put forward by an Administration that has both fostered corruption and failed to take any reasonable steps to stop corrupt activity. In the minds of the public, this raises the notion that the Administration is corrupt and cannot be trusted.
The numerous reports of corruption and mismanagement respecting funds allotted for support and reconstruction in Iraq support a belief that the Bush Administration is either totally incompetent in its mission to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, or that it is complicit in the corrupt diversion of billions of dollars. Why then, should Congress approve billions more for such purpose without greater assurance regarding how the money will be spent?
The recent reports about complete failure of training initiatives to function as local police forces also indicate that the Bush Administration is inept in its mission to create stabilizing conditions in Iraq. Reports of large training facilities built but never used, along with Olympic swimming pools and other luxuries not clearly tied to the purpose of the mission. The participants in the training have taken the pay, weapons and training and then deserted in very large numbers. Many of these deserters are believed to operate in local sectarian militia forces.
The wisdom of placing confidence, as the Bush Administration does, on the Iraqi government and Maliki is certainly questionable. By all appearances, the Maliki government has been walking a tightrope that maintaining support of the Shiite factions that oppose US involvement and concessions to the Sunnis on one side, and maintaining personal protection and substantial personal wealth as a result of maintaining a role as Bush’s agent in Iraq. Maliki makes some critical statements toward Washington to create an appearance of independence for his sectarian Shiite supporters and contradictory statements about his intent to crack down on local Shiite militias to end the sectarian violence. Would the Iraqi government act in the manner that it does if the Green Zone protection or US backed creature comforts were not provided?
The "way forward" needs the perspective of stepping back to carefully and realistically assessing the current situation. That perspective would compel a different and more practical approach to the problem. More than likely, a regionally negotiated political solution, rather than a militarily imposed solution would become the primary objective. Allocated funds would be directed to efforts that actually yield results and those awarded contracts would be responsible for completion of contract work and subject to reasonable accounting procedures.
It is true that, despite being led into Iraq by deception and unlawful conduct by the White House, the US is now present in the middle of a disastrous conflict. The practical problem is how to achieve the best possible outcome while extricating US troops from the country. That process cannot happen as long as Bush maintains an unrealistic “full speed ahead” and “damn the torpedoes” approach to the situation in Iraq.
The official word is in; the situation in Iraq is in dire straits. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, we may hope the report will put an end to the absurd commentary by Vice President Cheney painting a rosy picture of the conflict and the bright prospects of “winning.” There will be no effective progress toward a solution to the tragic situation in Iraq until the Administration and Congress are able to step back and obtain a realistic perspective of the actual situation in Iraq. This is made substantially more difficult by circumstances that foster disinformation. The previous attacks, including assaults by US forces, upon reporters operating as embedded and independentjournalists has drastically choked the flow of information regarding the situation on the ground. Moreover, the Bush Administration treatment and censorship of embedded journalists has discouraged such reporting efforts and undermined public confidence in such reports as well. Indeed, the more reliable reports about the Iraqi situation now come from foreign journalists and reporters for Arab and independent news organizations operating in the Mid East Region.
Another important piece of information in the National Intelligence Estimate is the identification of the primary risks and obstacles to improvement of the situation. "Corruption"is one central factor. ” This factor has many dimensions, but the impact is largely the same. It undermines the confidence that can rationally be placed in any proposal put forward by an Administration that has both fostered corruption and failed to take any reasonable steps to stop corrupt activity. In the minds of the public, this raises the notion that the Administration is corrupt and cannot be trusted.
The numerous reports of corruption and mismanagement respecting funds allotted for support and reconstruction in Iraq support a belief that the Bush Administration is either totally incompetent in its mission to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, or that it is complicit in the corrupt diversion of billions of dollars. Why then, should Congress approve billions more for such purpose without greater assurance regarding how the money will be spent?
The recent reports about complete failure of training initiatives to function as local police forces also indicate that the Bush Administration is inept in its mission to create stabilizing conditions in Iraq. Reports of large training facilities built but never used, along with Olympic swimming pools and other luxuries not clearly tied to the purpose of the mission. The participants in the training have taken the pay, weapons and training and then deserted in very large numbers. Many of these deserters are believed to operate in local sectarian militia forces.
The wisdom of placing confidence, as the Bush Administration does, on the Iraqi government and Maliki is certainly questionable. By all appearances, the Maliki government has been walking a tightrope that maintaining support of the Shiite factions that oppose US involvement and concessions to the Sunnis on one side, and maintaining personal protection and substantial personal wealth as a result of maintaining a role as Bush’s agent in Iraq. Maliki makes some critical statements toward Washington to create an appearance of independence for his sectarian Shiite supporters and contradictory statements about his intent to crack down on local Shiite militias to end the sectarian violence. Would the Iraqi government act in the manner that it does if the Green Zone protection or US backed creature comforts were not provided?
The "way forward" needs the perspective of stepping back to carefully and realistically assessing the current situation. That perspective would compel a different and more practical approach to the problem. More than likely, a regionally negotiated political solution, rather than a militarily imposed solution would become the primary objective. Allocated funds would be directed to efforts that actually yield results and those awarded contracts would be responsible for completion of contract work and subject to reasonable accounting procedures.
It is true that, despite being led into Iraq by deception and unlawful conduct by the White House, the US is now present in the middle of a disastrous conflict. The practical problem is how to achieve the best possible outcome while extricating US troops from the country. That process cannot happen as long as Bush maintains an unrealistic “full speed ahead” and “damn the torpedoes” approach to the situation in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)