Reading the cascade of disclosures now pouring forth about the torture and prisoner abuse practices that were authorized and condoned by the Bush Administration, from the White house to the Secretary of Defense on down, is a sickening process. Even more disturbing are the excuses and facile explanations why such information should be concealed or is of no serious importance presented by officials involved in the torture or who were responsible for preventing such abuses under their command. The most recent revelation is in testimony by Retired Major General Antonio Taguba, who conducted the investigation that revealed the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison back in 2004. He states that it is now beyond question that systematic torture was conducted against prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba with Bush Administration approval. He characterizes those actions, at least the worst of them, as “war crimes.” The only remaining question, he asserts, is whether those responsible for authorizing and condoning such tactics will be held accountable. This question is on the mind of many US citizens who long for the restoration of respect, integrity and moral authority that the US once enjoyed.
These allegations are supported by extensive documentation, including examination and interviews with former detainees. The argument that such detentions and abuses were necessary is belied by the number of prisoners held for years who were NEVER charged with any crime.
“Doctors and mental health experts examined 11 detainees held for long periods in the prison system that President Bush established after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. All of them eventually were released without charges.” Report by Physicians for Human Rights.
The Pentagon spokesman seeks to dismiss the accusations as irrelevant. Attempting to sweep the information under the rug, the Pentagon incredulously states with a straight face:
"All credible allegations of abuse are thoroughly investigated and, if substantiated, those responsible are held accountable," said Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman. "It adds little to the public discourse to draw sweeping conclusions based upon dubious allegations regarding remote medical assessments of former detainees, now far removed from detention," Gordon said.
Such responses would be laughable if the matter were not so serious. The Bush Administration denied the International Red Cross access to many of the detainees and held them without the ability to communicate with anyone. Now the pentagon would argue that evidence of their treatment while held captive is not reliable because it is not direct evidence or eyewitness testimony obtained during the period when these people were actually detained. That is like arguing that Nazi concentration camp survivors cannot testify reliably about their experience because the testimony was not transcribed while they were held prisoner by the Nazis.
Indeed, many of the excuses and rationalizations used by former Nazi officials are chillingly resurfacing in the form of rationalizations used to support the Bush Administration torture regime. Terrorists and those suspected of supporting terrorist activity are not really people, so they have no rights, they argue. They presented a threat to the security of the motherland, so they had to be removed, is the explanation. Practices such as electric shock, simulated drowning, intense physical abuse such as slamming heads against walls is not really torture, any more than human experimentation by Josef Mengele was any more than scientific inquiry is the rationalization. And so the excuses and rationalizations go. While no gas chambers were employed by the Bush Administration, which we know of, there are numerous instances in which prisoners died in captivity as a result of their “harsh interrogation.” Since they were neither charged with any crime, given the right to counsel or a trial, such deaths can only be deemed executions.
Technically, the tactics by the Bush Administration were not as extreme as those used by the Nazis. Yet with the history and knowledge of what happened in Germany over 60 years ago, can the conduct of Bush Administration officials be deemed any less reprehensible? The world wanted to pretend that the Holocaust was not happening. But the world now knows undeniably that it did happen, and has expressly vowed that it shall not happen again. Armed with that knowledge and bound by that commitment, how then can the systematic physical torture, starvation and deliberate psychological abuse of detainees be seriously countenanced? We should know better. We owe ourselves and the world a higher standard of conduct.
Perhaps even more distressing are the results of a poll recently published in which approximately 50% of US citizens believe that the use of torture against “terrorism suspects” is justified or justifiable. To note that certain renegade officials engaged in war crimes is significant. That Congress stood by and failed to reign in such criminal behavior when evidence of it was manifest is a tragedy. Yet for the moral compass of the nation as a whole to have veered so far off course as to condone such barbarity is monstrous. In that regard the history of Nazi Germany is paralleled. Hitler could not have perpetrated the heinous war crimes that took place under the Third Reich without the support and consent of the German people.
It would be well to note that the self righteous, “don’t give a damn what the law says or other nations think,” arrogance of the Bush Administration does not play well outside the myopic and self deluded confines of the US borders. It is not because other nations hate the US, as Bush sycophants and apologists would argue. Outside the US, people simply look at the facts objectively and measure the US conduct against the values and ideals that the nation publicly espouses. A nation that systematically violates international laws, human rights standards and spies upon its own citizens in violation of its own Constitution cannot be respected or taken seriously when it preaches to other nations about “freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.”
Indeed the US has stooped so low that it will take some time before it can legitimately hold its head up among nations of the civilized world. Respect must be earned. Taking deliberate and systematic steps as prescribed by the US Constitution, the court system and the Hague Conventions respecting war crimes would be the most responsible first step toward regaining that respect. This is something that the Obama Administration must support if it is to fulfill its Constitutional duty and if it hopes to regain stature as a world leader.
“Never again,” the motto declared after the Holocaust, must truly mean something. The only way it can have true meaning is that its lessons be understood and that steps are taken to hold those persons that choose to follow in the steps of Hitler and Nazi Germany accountable for their actions. That gas chambers and human dissection were not employed this time is only a matter of degree, and the comparisons of morality are far too similar.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Civil Rights Decisions: Supreme Court Has the Chance to Hit or Miss the Point
The United States Supreme Court currently has under consideration a cluster of cases that deal with the issues surrounding government action in the application and enforcement of civil rights laws. These cases involve employment discrimination claims, voting rights issues, education policies and mortgage lending practices. The most visible of the cases involves claims of reverse race discrimination by a group of white firefighters who claim that they were unlawfully denied promotions when promotional exam results were thrown out because of major racial disparity in the passing rate. The Supreme Court is being asked to address whether the racial disparity in the exam results was a sufficient basis for denying assignment of promotions based upon the exam. The case is not totally unlike the prior Bakke case involving use of scores for admission to law school.
A little background is in order to understand the process. In typical fire department and police promotional systems, employees with a minimum level of experience are permitted to take a promotion exam in order to qualify for a pool. When promotional positions open, assignments are made from the pool of employees who score high enough on the exam. Other factors may influence specific job assignments, but the primary step is to qualify for the promotional pool. The pool usually lasts for a specified period or whenever there are no qualified pool members left to fill openings that may arise.
In the past, promotional practices of public service systems have been challenged by Black and Hispanic employees because of either the exams used or the selective failure to appoint employees of color once they made it into the pool as alleged in Minnesota. In some cases Black qualified pool members were targets and discredited in order to make then ineligible for actual promotion. Other devices used to discriminate have been supplying white candidates with test preparation materials prior to the exam and prior to release to non-white applicants, as alleged in Jacksonville, Florida. In some cases, even the test questions have been released to selected candidates to provide advantage. These systems have long been tainted by the spoils system and by a “good ol’ boy” network that has given unfair advantage to whites and relatives.
Conceptually, the main issue is the importance of the exam used for qualification purposes. Without question, fire departments are allowed to apply some criteria to determine minimum qualification for promotional positions. Exams have been used traditionally, but over the years the nature of the exams has come under closer scrutiny. Civil Rights laws against discrimination allow use of exams, but only if they are “validated,” that is shown to be valid measures assess competence and that predict successful performance. It is presumed that race is not a valid criterion for predicting successful performance. For example, the screening device used at airports detects metal objects like knives and guns. These items are presumed to present a potential safety risk to the flight operators and other passengers, the intent and purpose of the “test.” A ceremonial blade carried by a passenger may not be intended for illicit use on the flight, but it will nevertheless be picked up by the test because of its intrinsic properties and the passenger will be disqualified.
Imagine, however, if the same test screened out every passenger who happened to have dark skin or appeared to be of Arabic ancestry. Since the “test” is still applied to all, it is non-discriminatory in its application, but the results are flawed because the criteria measured and the way it measures are not valid. Thus, a focus on only one aspect of the exam is incomplete and flawed. If it is improper to make a judgment about qualifications on the basis of race or ethnicity, then the use of a “facially” neutral test that yields discriminatory results is not a valid process. If the test, on the other hand can be shown through repeated use and proper administration to yield results which are not significantly different based upon the race or ethnicity of the applicant, the test is valid even if the results in a specific examination application are skewed toward or against a particular racial group.
The judicial review system is supposed to be designed to answer narrow questions, rather than make advisory pronouncements or sweeping policy directives. Nevertheless, commentators are looking to past decisions and statements by current Supreme Court justices to predict the outcomes on these pending cases. The role of the current political environment and composition of the Court are always potentially influencing factors. Chief Justice Roberts has previously stated dislike for government intervention based upon race. Justice Scalia has traditionally been opposed to any government action that might aid minorities or correct past discrimination, and Justice Thomas has trotted along behind him in the great majority of cases despite a cultural heritage that should have made him more sensitive. These so-called “conservatives” tend to focus primarily upon the remedy aspect of the problem and ignore the fundamental causes that created the dispute. In their view, government is virtually powerless to use race as a factor in applying corrective measures even to patently discriminatory systems and practices, as long as the process appears to be facially neutral. Other justices acknowledge the existence and effects of racism and discrimination and allow governments certain narrow latitude in attempting to remedy specific discriminatory situations.
In the firefighter case, the issue is not really whether the white firefighters who passed the exam were discriminated against by throwing out the results. The larger issue is whether the fire department could demonstrate the validity of an exam in which not one single Black firefighter passed. If the fire department [government] believed that it could not do so, it was OBLIGATED to throw out the results because any appointments based upon the resulting pool would have violated existing laws. The true issue is the sense of privilege that causes the white firefighters to believe in and rely upon an exam, just because it is an “official” exam. Ample evidence shows that exams can be content and structurally biased and thus cause results that do not accurately measure the relevant criteria. In some instances, they do measure basic functional qualifications, but the added factors in the test so disadvantage applicants of some races that the results are skewed. It is not possible to tell who would have passed the functional part if the biased part had not been included.
The Supreme Court has the chance to focus on the real issues here and determine whether the exam could unquestionably have been defended as a validated instrument, that no reasonable examination of the exam could have caused the fire department to question that the results were non-discriminatory. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the results should not have been thrown out and the white firefighters allowed participation in the qualified pool. [The lead plaintiff Ricci still might not have been actually promoted to a desired position because his dyslexia may have been a bona fide occupational issue for actually performing the specific functions of a firefighting supervisor.] If the exam was not clearly defensible, the fire department was correct in refusing to rely upon the results. The racial disparity of the results should have been a “red flag” that the exam or its application was flawed. If the infirmity of the exam was racial bias, then it would stand logic on its head to say that use of race to identify and throw out a flawed exam would be illegal.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to miss or deliberately avoid the real issues and decide that the test results should be upheld simply because the factor of race was used to throw out the results. This simplistic analysis would assert that the government is prohibited from using race as a factor in any of its employment actions. The philosophy behind this position tends to reinforce racism. It says that no matter how we arrived where we are, any action that we take at this point must be racially neutral. Neither affirmative steps to shape the system nor remedial steps to correct identified problems can be based upon racial factors. In the firefighter case, it would oblige the government to support a system and an exam that it truly believed to be discriminatory because it would be powerless to do anything to correct the racial disparity yielded by the results.
This notion ignores the very existence of racism, as it is axiomatic that current practices can serve to perpetuate past discrimination and further ingrain disparities that disadvantage people of color. A well meaning government official faced with a system that has embedded historical discrimination and biased practices would be powerless to take corrective action to create a more non-discriminatory system. It is like saying that, although white participants in a race were allowed to start the race ahead of the starting line, the race cannot be adjusted in order for the people of color to remedy the advantage that the whites started with. Some people of color will have such superior skill and talent that they are able to finish ahead of some whites. But the race cannot be called, in any true sense, a fair competition.
These case present a fundamental question as to the nature and character of governmental power in the US, as interpreted by the Roberts Court. The “original intent” of the Constitution, when written, did not consider Black people in the United States to be citizens, and laws which prohibited Blacks from presenting cases or acting as witnesses in court were considered Constitutional. The express language of the US Constitution, however, states that the government must act, when necessary, to protect the rights and welfare of all citizens. Subsequent decisions interpreting the Constitution as a “living document” have applied those protections to all people, regardless of race or ethnicity. The current Supreme Court will have a chance to deliberately hit or deliberately miss the most significant issues of these pending cases. Their decisions will provide evidence of the Court’s view of the current character of the nation.
A little background is in order to understand the process. In typical fire department and police promotional systems, employees with a minimum level of experience are permitted to take a promotion exam in order to qualify for a pool. When promotional positions open, assignments are made from the pool of employees who score high enough on the exam. Other factors may influence specific job assignments, but the primary step is to qualify for the promotional pool. The pool usually lasts for a specified period or whenever there are no qualified pool members left to fill openings that may arise.
In the past, promotional practices of public service systems have been challenged by Black and Hispanic employees because of either the exams used or the selective failure to appoint employees of color once they made it into the pool as alleged in Minnesota. In some cases Black qualified pool members were targets and discredited in order to make then ineligible for actual promotion. Other devices used to discriminate have been supplying white candidates with test preparation materials prior to the exam and prior to release to non-white applicants, as alleged in Jacksonville, Florida. In some cases, even the test questions have been released to selected candidates to provide advantage. These systems have long been tainted by the spoils system and by a “good ol’ boy” network that has given unfair advantage to whites and relatives.
Conceptually, the main issue is the importance of the exam used for qualification purposes. Without question, fire departments are allowed to apply some criteria to determine minimum qualification for promotional positions. Exams have been used traditionally, but over the years the nature of the exams has come under closer scrutiny. Civil Rights laws against discrimination allow use of exams, but only if they are “validated,” that is shown to be valid measures assess competence and that predict successful performance. It is presumed that race is not a valid criterion for predicting successful performance. For example, the screening device used at airports detects metal objects like knives and guns. These items are presumed to present a potential safety risk to the flight operators and other passengers, the intent and purpose of the “test.” A ceremonial blade carried by a passenger may not be intended for illicit use on the flight, but it will nevertheless be picked up by the test because of its intrinsic properties and the passenger will be disqualified.
Imagine, however, if the same test screened out every passenger who happened to have dark skin or appeared to be of Arabic ancestry. Since the “test” is still applied to all, it is non-discriminatory in its application, but the results are flawed because the criteria measured and the way it measures are not valid. Thus, a focus on only one aspect of the exam is incomplete and flawed. If it is improper to make a judgment about qualifications on the basis of race or ethnicity, then the use of a “facially” neutral test that yields discriminatory results is not a valid process. If the test, on the other hand can be shown through repeated use and proper administration to yield results which are not significantly different based upon the race or ethnicity of the applicant, the test is valid even if the results in a specific examination application are skewed toward or against a particular racial group.
The judicial review system is supposed to be designed to answer narrow questions, rather than make advisory pronouncements or sweeping policy directives. Nevertheless, commentators are looking to past decisions and statements by current Supreme Court justices to predict the outcomes on these pending cases. The role of the current political environment and composition of the Court are always potentially influencing factors. Chief Justice Roberts has previously stated dislike for government intervention based upon race. Justice Scalia has traditionally been opposed to any government action that might aid minorities or correct past discrimination, and Justice Thomas has trotted along behind him in the great majority of cases despite a cultural heritage that should have made him more sensitive. These so-called “conservatives” tend to focus primarily upon the remedy aspect of the problem and ignore the fundamental causes that created the dispute. In their view, government is virtually powerless to use race as a factor in applying corrective measures even to patently discriminatory systems and practices, as long as the process appears to be facially neutral. Other justices acknowledge the existence and effects of racism and discrimination and allow governments certain narrow latitude in attempting to remedy specific discriminatory situations.
In the firefighter case, the issue is not really whether the white firefighters who passed the exam were discriminated against by throwing out the results. The larger issue is whether the fire department could demonstrate the validity of an exam in which not one single Black firefighter passed. If the fire department [government] believed that it could not do so, it was OBLIGATED to throw out the results because any appointments based upon the resulting pool would have violated existing laws. The true issue is the sense of privilege that causes the white firefighters to believe in and rely upon an exam, just because it is an “official” exam. Ample evidence shows that exams can be content and structurally biased and thus cause results that do not accurately measure the relevant criteria. In some instances, they do measure basic functional qualifications, but the added factors in the test so disadvantage applicants of some races that the results are skewed. It is not possible to tell who would have passed the functional part if the biased part had not been included.
The Supreme Court has the chance to focus on the real issues here and determine whether the exam could unquestionably have been defended as a validated instrument, that no reasonable examination of the exam could have caused the fire department to question that the results were non-discriminatory. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the results should not have been thrown out and the white firefighters allowed participation in the qualified pool. [The lead plaintiff Ricci still might not have been actually promoted to a desired position because his dyslexia may have been a bona fide occupational issue for actually performing the specific functions of a firefighting supervisor.] If the exam was not clearly defensible, the fire department was correct in refusing to rely upon the results. The racial disparity of the results should have been a “red flag” that the exam or its application was flawed. If the infirmity of the exam was racial bias, then it would stand logic on its head to say that use of race to identify and throw out a flawed exam would be illegal.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to miss or deliberately avoid the real issues and decide that the test results should be upheld simply because the factor of race was used to throw out the results. This simplistic analysis would assert that the government is prohibited from using race as a factor in any of its employment actions. The philosophy behind this position tends to reinforce racism. It says that no matter how we arrived where we are, any action that we take at this point must be racially neutral. Neither affirmative steps to shape the system nor remedial steps to correct identified problems can be based upon racial factors. In the firefighter case, it would oblige the government to support a system and an exam that it truly believed to be discriminatory because it would be powerless to do anything to correct the racial disparity yielded by the results.
This notion ignores the very existence of racism, as it is axiomatic that current practices can serve to perpetuate past discrimination and further ingrain disparities that disadvantage people of color. A well meaning government official faced with a system that has embedded historical discrimination and biased practices would be powerless to take corrective action to create a more non-discriminatory system. It is like saying that, although white participants in a race were allowed to start the race ahead of the starting line, the race cannot be adjusted in order for the people of color to remedy the advantage that the whites started with. Some people of color will have such superior skill and talent that they are able to finish ahead of some whites. But the race cannot be called, in any true sense, a fair competition.
These case present a fundamental question as to the nature and character of governmental power in the US, as interpreted by the Roberts Court. The “original intent” of the Constitution, when written, did not consider Black people in the United States to be citizens, and laws which prohibited Blacks from presenting cases or acting as witnesses in court were considered Constitutional. The express language of the US Constitution, however, states that the government must act, when necessary, to protect the rights and welfare of all citizens. Subsequent decisions interpreting the Constitution as a “living document” have applied those protections to all people, regardless of race or ethnicity. The current Supreme Court will have a chance to deliberately hit or deliberately miss the most significant issues of these pending cases. Their decisions will provide evidence of the Court’s view of the current character of the nation.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Obama Falls Down
The Obama Administration has much to recommend it for the courage to address the frightening distress in which Bush has left the country mired. But despite such determination, there are some areas in which a display of courage is demonstrably lacking. The decision to forego prosecution of Bush administration CIA officers for torture crimes is an example of a “cave-in” to political pressure that disserves the country. Leaving potential prosecution on the table is not primarily a retribution driven tool, it is predominantly pragmatic.
Rather than disavow prosecution at the outset, immunity should be offered strategically in order to get the detailed information necessary to dissect and analyze how the government went so badly off course, legally and morally. Unlike torture as a means of extracting useful information, the current Justice Department should know that plea bargaining and offers of transactional immunity are both humane and effective ways to get at information. The information is often more reliable because the effectiveness of the immunity bargain is predicated upon verification of the information offered. In contrast, a tortured detainee will say anything the he or she believes the captors want to hear in order to stop the abusive treatment. If the true goal is to get to the bottom of the course of events that now has the US deemed irrelevant in the advocacy of human rights around the world, then retaining the option of pressuring material witnesses and participants to provide verifiable details would seem critically important and well as functional.
Much that the Obama Administration has tried to do is laudable, patient and moderate. Critics, other than the Obama haters who are negative on anything he does, tend toward two extremes. The first are the critics who trot out the old “cut taxes and let the capitalists run amok” portfolio of the Reagan/Bush ilk. This is the failed strategy that has led to the current sad state of affairs. Reagan was deliberate in his drive to disassemble governmental regulatory functions. G W Bush was reckless and unable to grasp the probable consequences of doctrinaire policies. As such, his kneejerk response to “terrorism” was to ensnare the US government in the same types of immoral and inhuman tactics that the so-called “war on terror” was supposed to eradicate. The notion that the end justifies any means is viable only when a nation is willing to abandon moral authority.
The second camp of critics tends to believe that excessive zeal in pursuit of truth and democracy is not a fault. They champion more vigorous measures to prosecute and punish wrongdoers who followed dogmatic orders and policies of the G W Bush administration. As in the Viet Nam My Lai massacre, the idea is that the foot soldiers should have known better than to carry out orders that were illegal and human rights violations. This position is also too extreme for the current situation. The probable truth lies somewhere in the gray areas between these positions. Many acts of torture were doubtless carried out sadistically and enthusiastically, but under the cover of an express legal opinion by hight government officials. While reprehensible, punishing these acts may not be as useful as information about who gave orders and which superior officers had specific knowledge of such conduct. When detainee claims of torture surface, as is now occurring more frequently, information to verify or refute is important.
In some instances, CIA and military officials appear to have acted in applying torture techniques PRIOR to the DOJ legal memorandum appearing to authorize such tactics. In other situations, torture was conducted after express concerns and reservations as to the legality, effectiveness and humanity of the treatment were raised. In these latter two instances, the argument that the personnel were “just following orders” simply does not wash.
And beyond individual actions and culpability, the testimony of these participants is vitally important to a full understanding of how torture came to be an institutionally sanctioned practice of the US, despite decades of international prohibitions and directives against its use. The argument that the country needs to “move beyond” the dark period of its history cannot withstand logic or scrutiny in this instance. It may be a policy decision not to mire the country further in vengeful public trials of Bush functionaries. But to sweep the matter under the rug by abandoning traditional prosecutorial tools is like denying the Holocaust. The wrong and the evil done in the name of the country is manifest and needs to be acknowledged. Whether or not participants are jailed, the simple truth of what happened and how it was allowed to happen is important to enable the country to truly move past that dark period. This is the argument of those sponsoring a truth commission, a laudable goal. However, conducting such an inquiry in the context of Congressional hearings is likely to generate more publicity and more heat than light.
The die may be already cast, in that Panetta already gave assurances of no prosecution that Obama seems to have ratified. But the move was nevertheless a mistake. Obama’s greatest power to govern stems from a belief that he will have the courage to govern justly and will move to restore some measure of integrity in government and moral authority to the image of the United States. Moves like the decision to abandon, a priori, the option of prosecution against war crimes only serves to weaken public confidence in his leadership.
Rather than disavow prosecution at the outset, immunity should be offered strategically in order to get the detailed information necessary to dissect and analyze how the government went so badly off course, legally and morally. Unlike torture as a means of extracting useful information, the current Justice Department should know that plea bargaining and offers of transactional immunity are both humane and effective ways to get at information. The information is often more reliable because the effectiveness of the immunity bargain is predicated upon verification of the information offered. In contrast, a tortured detainee will say anything the he or she believes the captors want to hear in order to stop the abusive treatment. If the true goal is to get to the bottom of the course of events that now has the US deemed irrelevant in the advocacy of human rights around the world, then retaining the option of pressuring material witnesses and participants to provide verifiable details would seem critically important and well as functional.
Much that the Obama Administration has tried to do is laudable, patient and moderate. Critics, other than the Obama haters who are negative on anything he does, tend toward two extremes. The first are the critics who trot out the old “cut taxes and let the capitalists run amok” portfolio of the Reagan/Bush ilk. This is the failed strategy that has led to the current sad state of affairs. Reagan was deliberate in his drive to disassemble governmental regulatory functions. G W Bush was reckless and unable to grasp the probable consequences of doctrinaire policies. As such, his kneejerk response to “terrorism” was to ensnare the US government in the same types of immoral and inhuman tactics that the so-called “war on terror” was supposed to eradicate. The notion that the end justifies any means is viable only when a nation is willing to abandon moral authority.
The second camp of critics tends to believe that excessive zeal in pursuit of truth and democracy is not a fault. They champion more vigorous measures to prosecute and punish wrongdoers who followed dogmatic orders and policies of the G W Bush administration. As in the Viet Nam My Lai massacre, the idea is that the foot soldiers should have known better than to carry out orders that were illegal and human rights violations. This position is also too extreme for the current situation. The probable truth lies somewhere in the gray areas between these positions. Many acts of torture were doubtless carried out sadistically and enthusiastically, but under the cover of an express legal opinion by hight government officials. While reprehensible, punishing these acts may not be as useful as information about who gave orders and which superior officers had specific knowledge of such conduct. When detainee claims of torture surface, as is now occurring more frequently, information to verify or refute is important.
In some instances, CIA and military officials appear to have acted in applying torture techniques PRIOR to the DOJ legal memorandum appearing to authorize such tactics. In other situations, torture was conducted after express concerns and reservations as to the legality, effectiveness and humanity of the treatment were raised. In these latter two instances, the argument that the personnel were “just following orders” simply does not wash.
And beyond individual actions and culpability, the testimony of these participants is vitally important to a full understanding of how torture came to be an institutionally sanctioned practice of the US, despite decades of international prohibitions and directives against its use. The argument that the country needs to “move beyond” the dark period of its history cannot withstand logic or scrutiny in this instance. It may be a policy decision not to mire the country further in vengeful public trials of Bush functionaries. But to sweep the matter under the rug by abandoning traditional prosecutorial tools is like denying the Holocaust. The wrong and the evil done in the name of the country is manifest and needs to be acknowledged. Whether or not participants are jailed, the simple truth of what happened and how it was allowed to happen is important to enable the country to truly move past that dark period. This is the argument of those sponsoring a truth commission, a laudable goal. However, conducting such an inquiry in the context of Congressional hearings is likely to generate more publicity and more heat than light.
The die may be already cast, in that Panetta already gave assurances of no prosecution that Obama seems to have ratified. But the move was nevertheless a mistake. Obama’s greatest power to govern stems from a belief that he will have the courage to govern justly and will move to restore some measure of integrity in government and moral authority to the image of the United States. Moves like the decision to abandon, a priori, the option of prosecution against war crimes only serves to weaken public confidence in his leadership.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
A New "Economic" Monroe Doctrine
Centuries ago President Monroe announced a doctrine, somewhat arrogantly because of a lack of real ability to back up the demand, that the Western hemisphere should be free from further colonization or interference from European Powers. At the time, the power and reach of the colonial giants Great Britain and Spain was on the wane and their colonization efforts in the West crippled by infighting on the European continent. The upstart nation, the United States of America, was growing rapidly and beginning to feel the pride and responsibility of becoming a world power. Surprisingly, the established nations of the world took this dictate of the upstart nation seriously and focused further colonization efforts elsewhere.
On more than one occasion, the USA has been obliged to defend that doctrine in order to maintain its sphere of influence, militarily and economically. By the 1950’s, however, the USA had proven capability to back up the demand and the doctrine. The Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of another war when the former Soviet sought to establish a blatant military presence at the doorstep of the USA. The fear of nuclear disaster helped to avert a war and the matter was resolved through a detente that left all concerns aware that the Monroe Doctrine was still an important piece of the nationalist identity of the USA.
In the twenty-first century, the balance and character of the threats have changed. The world power pantheon has changed and new principal players have joined the game. Most significantly, China has now become a major factor in the geopolitical maneuvering for influence and control. The ability to shape world events now relies less upon military strength than upon economic power. Many in Washington, over the past several decades never would have dreamt of the decline in both power and influence that the USA now faces in the world.
Indeed, it could be argued that the ideological myopia of the George W. Bush Administration ignored signals of change in the real world power structure while playing “cowboy” politics in Iraq. That debacle squandered critical time and resources that the USA sorely needed to adapt to a new set of realities. In its folly of attempting to justify violation of international human rights standards of conduct with the talisman of a “war on terror,” the Bush Administration also expended the bulk of its moral leadership capital. As a result, 2008 arrived with a world in economic turmoil and the lack of any true claimant to world leadership. The USA is no longer feared or able to wield major moral authority in the world arena. This brings us back to an analogy nearer to the status where Monroe stood that many would care to acknowledge.
Another aspect of this geopolitical chess game is the atrophy of US relationships with and the alienation of Latin American neighbors. This is a process wrought by US foreign policy since the Reagan Administration. Arrogance and cultural incompetence are major causes of this decline, as the USA has attempted to use its economic might to bully governments of South and Latin America or to intimidate them with military alliances with surrogate leaders. Vague political tropisms such as mindless anti-narcotic trafficking and anti-terrorist policies have been applied without thinking through the real world implications of the manner in which they have been carried out. The result, to date, has been a high level of distrust and strained relationships with governments and peoples of Latin America.
The examples of failure are almost too numerous to mention. From the misguided embargo against Cuba [which achieves no actual political benefit while perpetuating humanitarian suffering as well as disrespect for US foreign policy] to Iran-Contra and up to the recent expulsion of the US Embassy official from Ecuador for overt meddling in Ecuadorian government internal affairs [his CIA role, under the cover of diplomatic status, was the probable justification for his activity – again signifying a wrongheaded mindset]. The cumulative effect of these misguided policies, together with a loss of confidence in the economic wisdom and prowess of the US, has been a distancing of Latin American governments from Washington and a distinct leftward shift. The shift toward more socialist policies is not, in itself, a negative development when the long neglected actual needs of the populations in these countries are being addressed [not by any means a foregone conclusion]. However, the alienation and enmity respecting the USA is a very unfortunate and development.
Into the chasm have stepped a number of the new players in the geopolitical chess game and some old players as well. Witness the weekly press coverage of State visits and new trade agreements between Latin American governments with China and Russia. Iran and India have entered the game as well, striking advantageous trade and investment agreements involving both economic development and trade of manufactured goods. This is all taking place while the USA is going through an historic decline in its economy and loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. Ecuador buys helicopters from India while potentially superior units from USA manufacturers are ignored. The Russian weapons purchased in Venezuela and Chile to re-equip military forces could probably have been supplied by manufacturers in the USA. President Bachelet of Chile just met with Putin of Russia to commit to again redouble the amount of trade between those two countries. The hottest selling autos in Chile are now manufactured in China. The list of examples could continue.
None of these purchases have presented a risk to USA military security. Neither does the existence of global trade present an eminent threat. In short, there is no legitimate reason why the US could not have pursued competitive participation in these economic developments.
The cumulative effect of the lost economic opportunity and the sensibilities that have caused these Latin governments to seek out other trading partners and avoid relations with the USA should be a wake up call regarding the infirmity of relations with our neighbors and presumptive trading partners. The advantages in terms of potential common interests as well as basic advantages in terms of the cost of delivery should be obvious, if the USA was able to shed its neo-liberal blinders and view the situation in a more realistic and less ideological way.
The old mantras ring especially hollow. The USA cannot trumpet human rights as a clarion call unless and until it deals in a forthright way with the crimes of the Bush Administration to restore its moral authority. The billions spent in anti-drug campaigns have proven ineffective, as evidenced by the recent acknowledgement by Secretary of State Clinton that the USA market for drugs and USA supplied weapons in the hands of drug trafficking cartels are as much to blame for the current violent illicit drug trade as the laxity in enforcement of the conduit countries like Mexico.
If money alone were the issue, the use of financing vehicles similar to those used by these other countries certainly would be an option for the Obama Administration. After all, the only effective way to reinvigorate jobs in the manufacturing industry is to increase and generate customers to buy the good manufactured. Spending billions to extend unemployment benefits is a necessary temporary step. But until the source of the problem is squarely addressed, the revival of markets for goods those unemployed workers would produce, the economic conundrum will persist. The open question is why at least a portion of the money being directed toward bailout of corrupt and incompetent banking and manufacturing concerns is not used to rebuild economic relations with our Latin American neighbors? The demand for goods is clearly present, as we see the volume of trade with other countries continuing and increasing. Perhaps the recession in the USA will create an opportunity for readjustments in the cost of manufacturing that enhance competitiveness. However, much of the purchasing that comprises this international trade involves issues of superior product quality and technology that the purchasing countries do not have. Here the USA has had a traditional advantage.
But the dual purpose of a change in policy cannot be discounted. Throughout human civilization the establishment of trade ties has led to the development of political alliances. If the USA truly seeks to protect its geopolitical interests in the Western Hemisphere, it must re-evaluate the deteriorated relationships with Latin America. The new policies should not stem from a hegemonic and racist fount, combined with the arrogance displayed by Bush. Instead, Latin America should be approached respectfully as one would a neighbor with the goal of establishing lasting positive relationships. If the USA seeks to deter further economic colonization of Latin America by China, Russia and others, it must stop treating Latin American governments like a colonizing bully.
A new Monroe Doctrine based principally on economic foundations is warranted. The “troops” from the other hemisphere that are currently establishing strongholds in Latin America are not wearing camouflage gear and carrying weapons. They are wearing business suits and carrying checkbooks. With these vestments and tools, they are securing ties that may present as much of a risk to the long term interests of the USA as the missiles that the Soviet Union sought to install in Cuba.
On more than one occasion, the USA has been obliged to defend that doctrine in order to maintain its sphere of influence, militarily and economically. By the 1950’s, however, the USA had proven capability to back up the demand and the doctrine. The Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of another war when the former Soviet sought to establish a blatant military presence at the doorstep of the USA. The fear of nuclear disaster helped to avert a war and the matter was resolved through a detente that left all concerns aware that the Monroe Doctrine was still an important piece of the nationalist identity of the USA.
In the twenty-first century, the balance and character of the threats have changed. The world power pantheon has changed and new principal players have joined the game. Most significantly, China has now become a major factor in the geopolitical maneuvering for influence and control. The ability to shape world events now relies less upon military strength than upon economic power. Many in Washington, over the past several decades never would have dreamt of the decline in both power and influence that the USA now faces in the world.
Indeed, it could be argued that the ideological myopia of the George W. Bush Administration ignored signals of change in the real world power structure while playing “cowboy” politics in Iraq. That debacle squandered critical time and resources that the USA sorely needed to adapt to a new set of realities. In its folly of attempting to justify violation of international human rights standards of conduct with the talisman of a “war on terror,” the Bush Administration also expended the bulk of its moral leadership capital. As a result, 2008 arrived with a world in economic turmoil and the lack of any true claimant to world leadership. The USA is no longer feared or able to wield major moral authority in the world arena. This brings us back to an analogy nearer to the status where Monroe stood that many would care to acknowledge.
Another aspect of this geopolitical chess game is the atrophy of US relationships with and the alienation of Latin American neighbors. This is a process wrought by US foreign policy since the Reagan Administration. Arrogance and cultural incompetence are major causes of this decline, as the USA has attempted to use its economic might to bully governments of South and Latin America or to intimidate them with military alliances with surrogate leaders. Vague political tropisms such as mindless anti-narcotic trafficking and anti-terrorist policies have been applied without thinking through the real world implications of the manner in which they have been carried out. The result, to date, has been a high level of distrust and strained relationships with governments and peoples of Latin America.
The examples of failure are almost too numerous to mention. From the misguided embargo against Cuba [which achieves no actual political benefit while perpetuating humanitarian suffering as well as disrespect for US foreign policy] to Iran-Contra and up to the recent expulsion of the US Embassy official from Ecuador for overt meddling in Ecuadorian government internal affairs [his CIA role, under the cover of diplomatic status, was the probable justification for his activity – again signifying a wrongheaded mindset]. The cumulative effect of these misguided policies, together with a loss of confidence in the economic wisdom and prowess of the US, has been a distancing of Latin American governments from Washington and a distinct leftward shift. The shift toward more socialist policies is not, in itself, a negative development when the long neglected actual needs of the populations in these countries are being addressed [not by any means a foregone conclusion]. However, the alienation and enmity respecting the USA is a very unfortunate and development.
Into the chasm have stepped a number of the new players in the geopolitical chess game and some old players as well. Witness the weekly press coverage of State visits and new trade agreements between Latin American governments with China and Russia. Iran and India have entered the game as well, striking advantageous trade and investment agreements involving both economic development and trade of manufactured goods. This is all taking place while the USA is going through an historic decline in its economy and loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. Ecuador buys helicopters from India while potentially superior units from USA manufacturers are ignored. The Russian weapons purchased in Venezuela and Chile to re-equip military forces could probably have been supplied by manufacturers in the USA. President Bachelet of Chile just met with Putin of Russia to commit to again redouble the amount of trade between those two countries. The hottest selling autos in Chile are now manufactured in China. The list of examples could continue.
None of these purchases have presented a risk to USA military security. Neither does the existence of global trade present an eminent threat. In short, there is no legitimate reason why the US could not have pursued competitive participation in these economic developments.
The cumulative effect of the lost economic opportunity and the sensibilities that have caused these Latin governments to seek out other trading partners and avoid relations with the USA should be a wake up call regarding the infirmity of relations with our neighbors and presumptive trading partners. The advantages in terms of potential common interests as well as basic advantages in terms of the cost of delivery should be obvious, if the USA was able to shed its neo-liberal blinders and view the situation in a more realistic and less ideological way.
The old mantras ring especially hollow. The USA cannot trumpet human rights as a clarion call unless and until it deals in a forthright way with the crimes of the Bush Administration to restore its moral authority. The billions spent in anti-drug campaigns have proven ineffective, as evidenced by the recent acknowledgement by Secretary of State Clinton that the USA market for drugs and USA supplied weapons in the hands of drug trafficking cartels are as much to blame for the current violent illicit drug trade as the laxity in enforcement of the conduit countries like Mexico.
If money alone were the issue, the use of financing vehicles similar to those used by these other countries certainly would be an option for the Obama Administration. After all, the only effective way to reinvigorate jobs in the manufacturing industry is to increase and generate customers to buy the good manufactured. Spending billions to extend unemployment benefits is a necessary temporary step. But until the source of the problem is squarely addressed, the revival of markets for goods those unemployed workers would produce, the economic conundrum will persist. The open question is why at least a portion of the money being directed toward bailout of corrupt and incompetent banking and manufacturing concerns is not used to rebuild economic relations with our Latin American neighbors? The demand for goods is clearly present, as we see the volume of trade with other countries continuing and increasing. Perhaps the recession in the USA will create an opportunity for readjustments in the cost of manufacturing that enhance competitiveness. However, much of the purchasing that comprises this international trade involves issues of superior product quality and technology that the purchasing countries do not have. Here the USA has had a traditional advantage.
But the dual purpose of a change in policy cannot be discounted. Throughout human civilization the establishment of trade ties has led to the development of political alliances. If the USA truly seeks to protect its geopolitical interests in the Western Hemisphere, it must re-evaluate the deteriorated relationships with Latin America. The new policies should not stem from a hegemonic and racist fount, combined with the arrogance displayed by Bush. Instead, Latin America should be approached respectfully as one would a neighbor with the goal of establishing lasting positive relationships. If the USA seeks to deter further economic colonization of Latin America by China, Russia and others, it must stop treating Latin American governments like a colonizing bully.
A new Monroe Doctrine based principally on economic foundations is warranted. The “troops” from the other hemisphere that are currently establishing strongholds in Latin America are not wearing camouflage gear and carrying weapons. They are wearing business suits and carrying checkbooks. With these vestments and tools, they are securing ties that may present as much of a risk to the long term interests of the USA as the missiles that the Soviet Union sought to install in Cuba.
Many Want To Play the Hero, Few Are Willing To Die For Their Beliefs
Spanish Magistrate Baltazar Garzon, charged with investigating credible claims of torture arising from detention and interrogation of prisoners in the Iraq conflict and the Bush “War on Terror” associated with that post-9/11 set of US policies, ordered prosecutors to investigate the actions of several Bush Administration officials. Douglas Feith, former US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, along with Alberto Gonzalez, David Addington, John Yoo and Jay Bybee were names as targets of the investigation. The roles of Bybee and Yoo are fairly well known as legal counsel responsible for drafting and approving legal memoranda that rationalized and appeared to authorize aggressive interrogation techniques deemed by the rest of the international community as illegal torture. Former Attorney General Gonzalez was named by Condoleeza Rice as the designated Administration official coordinating DOJ advice to the president regarding interrogation policy. Addington was Cheney’s primary functionary and the principal conduit through which the War on Terror policy moved.
Feith was a principal player in his role cooking up false and misleading “intelligence” alleging ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq. He also served on a work group that developed harsh interrogation technique policies approved by the Bush Administration and used against detainees in Bagram, Guantanamo and the many “secret” prison facilities to which prisoners were taken as a result of “extraordinary rendition” practices.
Feith, in response to news that he was being investigated, recently replied in an interview that he had not advocated the policies and practices under scrutiny. This position seems facile at best, as the basis for initiating the investigation came from direct quotes in interviews given by Feith himself. The 98 page report upon which the magistrate acted contains multiple corroborating sources that describe a fairly clear picture of the parties involved as well as the actions that arose from the deliberations of the Bush administration work group. As direct testimony accumulates from detainees subjected to the aggressive interrogation practices, the focus of both cause and effect begins to sharpen.
At the time of his central involvement and public pronouncements of the importance and necessity of using such techniques that, even then, raised questions of Geneva Conventions and international law violations, Feith wrapped himself in the cloak of a hero promoting and protecting the national interests of the United States and the “American people.” Now, when his actions are being scrutinized in the cold light of history and without the backdrop of a sycophantic Congress and enabling White House, Feith seeks to rewrite history and claim that he never supported such policies.
A man of courage and integrity would simply have acknowledged his willing and enthusiastic role in the Bush fiasco. An honest man would accept responsibility for what he actually did in helping to shape and advocate approval of measures that he believed were important to advancing the interests of his superiors and their regime. That would be consistent with the posture of hero in which Feith tried to cast himself at the time of his participation in the work group. If those were his beliefs, then he ought to have the courage to stand up for them. John Yoo has remained unapologetic respecting his legal memos that the great majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, have assessed as both legally unfounded and professionally incompetent. Yet John Yoo has maintained the courage of his convictions, no matter how flawed and indefensible, morally and legally, they are.
Perhaps it is in keeping with the character surrounding the falsified intelligence activities of Feith and the general pattern of deceit and dishonesty of the Bush Administration, that he would now seek to disavow activities regarding which clear documentation exists. In more forthright times, his current posture might be called a “bald faced lie.” Yet the Bush Administration was not generally in the same arena as the truth when it came to justifications for its policies regarding Iraq and its War on Terror. Instead, it typically chose to deceive the public and most of Congress while claiming privilege or classified status as a basis for refusing to turn over any corroborating or supporting documentation for the claims it made or policy positions it took. So it is not entirely clear whether Feith actually did support the torture of prisoners in his heart, while he actively advanced torture policy in his actions. He may have simply chosen to abandon any morality or to act against his personal values in order to advance his career and public posture.
One thing is clear, however, Feith took an active role in advocating for the use of torture against detainees in connection with the War on Terror and the Iraq invasion and occupation. His current denial of such actions is cowardly and unseemly. Nothing other than his own venality required him to set aside moral opposition to torture in support of the Bush regime policies. If he had no such moral objection then, it is cowardly to effect the posture that he did object when his actions are now under objective scrutiny. It is a sign of weak character to seek to portray oneself as a hero to aggrandize a public posture, only to disavow both actions and responsibility when held accountable for the actions upon which such heroism was claimed.
See Also: Spain investigates what America Should -
Marjorie Cohn - Monday, April 6, 2009 - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/EDSG16SH3N.DTL
Feith was a principal player in his role cooking up false and misleading “intelligence” alleging ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq. He also served on a work group that developed harsh interrogation technique policies approved by the Bush Administration and used against detainees in Bagram, Guantanamo and the many “secret” prison facilities to which prisoners were taken as a result of “extraordinary rendition” practices.
Feith, in response to news that he was being investigated, recently replied in an interview that he had not advocated the policies and practices under scrutiny. This position seems facile at best, as the basis for initiating the investigation came from direct quotes in interviews given by Feith himself. The 98 page report upon which the magistrate acted contains multiple corroborating sources that describe a fairly clear picture of the parties involved as well as the actions that arose from the deliberations of the Bush administration work group. As direct testimony accumulates from detainees subjected to the aggressive interrogation practices, the focus of both cause and effect begins to sharpen.
At the time of his central involvement and public pronouncements of the importance and necessity of using such techniques that, even then, raised questions of Geneva Conventions and international law violations, Feith wrapped himself in the cloak of a hero promoting and protecting the national interests of the United States and the “American people.” Now, when his actions are being scrutinized in the cold light of history and without the backdrop of a sycophantic Congress and enabling White House, Feith seeks to rewrite history and claim that he never supported such policies.
A man of courage and integrity would simply have acknowledged his willing and enthusiastic role in the Bush fiasco. An honest man would accept responsibility for what he actually did in helping to shape and advocate approval of measures that he believed were important to advancing the interests of his superiors and their regime. That would be consistent with the posture of hero in which Feith tried to cast himself at the time of his participation in the work group. If those were his beliefs, then he ought to have the courage to stand up for them. John Yoo has remained unapologetic respecting his legal memos that the great majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, have assessed as both legally unfounded and professionally incompetent. Yet John Yoo has maintained the courage of his convictions, no matter how flawed and indefensible, morally and legally, they are.
Perhaps it is in keeping with the character surrounding the falsified intelligence activities of Feith and the general pattern of deceit and dishonesty of the Bush Administration, that he would now seek to disavow activities regarding which clear documentation exists. In more forthright times, his current posture might be called a “bald faced lie.” Yet the Bush Administration was not generally in the same arena as the truth when it came to justifications for its policies regarding Iraq and its War on Terror. Instead, it typically chose to deceive the public and most of Congress while claiming privilege or classified status as a basis for refusing to turn over any corroborating or supporting documentation for the claims it made or policy positions it took. So it is not entirely clear whether Feith actually did support the torture of prisoners in his heart, while he actively advanced torture policy in his actions. He may have simply chosen to abandon any morality or to act against his personal values in order to advance his career and public posture.
One thing is clear, however, Feith took an active role in advocating for the use of torture against detainees in connection with the War on Terror and the Iraq invasion and occupation. His current denial of such actions is cowardly and unseemly. Nothing other than his own venality required him to set aside moral opposition to torture in support of the Bush regime policies. If he had no such moral objection then, it is cowardly to effect the posture that he did object when his actions are now under objective scrutiny. It is a sign of weak character to seek to portray oneself as a hero to aggrandize a public posture, only to disavow both actions and responsibility when held accountable for the actions upon which such heroism was claimed.
See Also: Spain investigates what America Should -
Marjorie Cohn - Monday, April 6, 2009 - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/EDSG16SH3N.DTL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)