There is a very crude saying about “opinions” that has been around a long time. It says – “Opinions are like A#@ holes, everybody has one.” The tag line is that just because everyone has one, does not provide any quality assurance of the product.
Reading the stream of so-called “experts” advancing opinions on just about every current issue of importance reveals how lax the journalistic establishment has become regarding its duty to provide reasonably reliable information to the public. We have shifted from an information based media to an infotainment based media. Talking heads are pushed in our face, not because they have any credibility or special knowledge to justify their labels as “experts” in the subject, but because they are willing to provide good theater in an organized shouting match.
The agenda seems to be to pit two talking heads against each other and let them battle until time for the interview runs out. Never mind that the so-called experts lack substantive knowledge and are being paid or subsidized by the corporate interests whose “position” they are arguing. Forget that very few if any real facts are being published to actually inform the audience. News has become just another branch of PR and propaganda.
And reporters no longer have any semblance of objectivity in this process. If they want to write an article, like one I read today, about rising taxes in State governments, [http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com] they go find a representative from a [conservative] “tax monitoring organization” to provide sound bites to support the opinion or slant that the writer has chosen in advance. While railing against the increases in tax rates on higher bracket incomes, the representative “expert” makes no mention that these same protesters have demanded level or increased services from the State governments while resisting any measures to fund those services.
If one looks at the situation rationally, the gravy train had to come to an end. The “No NEW Taxes” mantra of the GOP resulted in continued services to the wealthy with tax reductions and no increases in taxes to pay for the rising cost of the public services. The benefit to the wealthy came at the expense of reducing essential social services and education funding. Now, in a recession economy when all the fat and flesh is gone and State governments are hacking at the bone, these same wealthy folks are whining because State governments are increasing marginal tax rates on those with income over $150,000. I weep for them in my cheap beer as they cry in their Perrier-Jouet. But the “reporter” seems to feel no obligation to take a critical look at the views of the so-called “expert.” There seems little if any effort to challenge the logic or veracity of the opinions being espoused.
Not every issue has two sides of equal merit or is appropriate for drama. I heard one interview a few days ago on Public radio that backfired. The host put on two police chiefs to discuss the Gates arrest in Cambridge and the police officer’s handling of the situation. One Chief was the head of a Black Police Officers’ organization, the other a White chief in a southern town in North Carolina. To the dismay of the host, looking to incite a race debate, BOTH chiefs said the same thing. They both gave the opinion that the police officer should have withdrawn and de-escalated the situation rather than arrest Prof. Gates. Despite several attempts by the host to incite an argument, both chiefs maintained that solid professional training of officers requires that they not allow themselves to be baited by irritated detainees or persons they encounter during investigations. Neither would recommend arrest of Gates, even if he had used abusive language after becoming upset. To the disappointment of the radio host, the experts actually knew what they were talking about and gave insightful information and opinions during the interview. Though this SHOULD have been the purpose of the interview, it resulted more from accident than from design or intent.
Another appalling example has been the media time and attention given to the “Birthers.” This right wing group of nutcases is arguing that President Obama has not sufficiently “proven” that he is a real American that was entitled by birth to US citizenship. Given that Obama went through perhaps the most scrutiny of any Presidential candidate in US history prior to election, and was sworn in as an official act by a Supreme Court Justice, it is absolutely certain that there is no shred of credible or even newsworthy evidence to support the position of this fringe group. Yet at a time when the public should be getting reliable information about health care proposals, media time and attention is devoted to supposed “debates” involving the position of these “Birthers.” If any example supports the saying, this example shows its veracity.
It is questionable whether the news media will ever be able to return to a level of professionalism in which stories are checked out before publication, in which the financial or political [often synonymous] interests of the so-called “experts” are disclosed when allowing the talking heads to offer their opinions. There is a line between censoring or filtering the news and exercising professional editorial judgment. By all means publish opposing viewpoints on important issues of the day. But in doing so, take care to do the homework expected of good journalists. Expose bias, hidden agendas and interests on the part of so-called experts. And above all, exercise some common sense. The freedom of press also entails some responsibility. Not every opinion deserves to get on the air or in the newspaper. Newspapers are going under in this country daily or being sold to conglomerates like News Corp. If a media organization cannot hew to the basic principles of solid honest professional journalism, why should we really care if they fail? But if we find a news organization that DOES adhere to those standards, then the public should rally to their support and help them stay alive.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
American Justice, in Black & White
Time will shortly give us a glimpse of the so called “progress” that so many claim to have been made in race relations in the United States, as evidenced by the election of President Obama. Compare two cases of interpretation of “justice” and the rule of law in present day America.
In one case, the question was whether a school system acted unlawfully in requiring the equivalent of a strip search of a young white student who authorities suspected of hiding prescription drugs. The court decided that the school authorities acted outside the law by treating the student inappropriately when they were not faced with any serious threat and they lacked sufficient evidence to suggest that the student was, in fact, in possession of any dangerous substance. The situation reflected a routine school policy enforcement process that got out of hand. Although the authorities had the right to maintain the policy against drug possession, the manner in which they enforced that policy was subject to constraints relating to the respectful treatment of a student suspect. Without sufficient justification and probable cause to believe that the student was violating the law or school policy, the school was not entitled to humiliate the young student by subjecting her to a search of her underwear. Moreover, the court suggested that the nature of the alleged violation should inform the nature of the enforcement response. In other words, if the student were suspected of gun possession accompanied by evidence of a threat against other students or staff, harsher treatment may have been justified. But in this case, suspicion of having Tylenol or some similarly innocuous substance did not justify the invasive assault on her person. The student's rights were violated by the humiliating treatment, the court ruled, although there was no force used, no arrest and the search was done by female officials in a private setting.
Now consider the case of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Returning home to his Cambridge, MA, house near Harvard Square, Gates found the front door stuck. After he and his driver were unable to open the door, he went around to the back door, unlocked it and went inside to disarm the alarm system and to unlock the front door. He then returned to the front door and again tried to open it forcefully and was successful. Apparently, a neighbor called police to report a break-in and a police officer came to the door to confront Gates. Understandably surprised, Gates first challenged the officer, who would not accept that Gates owned and belonged in the home, and then Gates showed him his Harvard Identification as well as his personal identification, proving that he lived at the house. This should have been the end of the incident, since the alarm system had not gone off and the resident had shown documented proof that he lived there.
In light of recent events at Harvard, including other instances in which Black male professionals have been targeted and detained or questioned by Harvard Security and Cambridge Police, Gates questioned the officer whether the same encounter would be happening if he had been a white professor. In particular, Gates questioned why the officer continued to treat him disrespectfully and with suspicion after having been presented with ample proof and documentation of Gates’ legitimate presence in the house. He demanded of the officer his name and badge number so that he could follow up. The officer refused and Gates was then arrested for “disorderly and tumultuous conduct” and placed in handcuffs and taken to jail. In addition to being one of Harvard’s most distinguished professors, Gates needs a cane to get around, so he obviously was not a threat to the officer or the community.
Most of the Harvard professional community hopes that the charges will be dropped and that the matter can be resolved peacefully. Other professors were stunned and disappointed by the treatment that Gates received. The underlying motif here was that a Black man did not belong in the neighborhood and could not possibly be a legitimate resident in a nice home in such a prestigious location. For that reason, the police officer was unwilling to follow what would have been typical protocol for a white citizen, and demanded additional proof that Gates belonged in the house. When questioned about the underlying racism, the officer responded defensively with the use of force to arrest Gates, not for any charge of unlawful entry onto property or breaking and entering, but for questioning the officer's authority.
The test will be whether the obvious racism that was the foundation for the actions of the officer are exposed. We will see whether the police are reprimanded or sanctioned as were the authorities in the student case. In the case of Gates, placing an elderly Black man in chains [an obviously humiliating and culturally insensitive action] and taking him to jail was at least as invasive as the search in the student case. The official justification was even weaker, because the officer had PROOF that there was no crime BEFORE making the arrest. In the student case, the administration still had at least a weak suspicion that the search would have revealed a violation of school policy.
Taking action that impacts some in a racially distinct way requires justification under current precedent. In the case of the white firefighters’ challenge to the New Haven authority's decision to abandon the results of a promotional exam because the results suggested improper race bias, the Court ruled that discriminatory treatment requires solid evidence rather than mental impressions or “belief” on the part of officials. The officer in the Gates incident clearly acted beyond his authority and the law, if this is the standard applied. There was no “evidence” of wrong or wrongdoing other than the racial stereotypical “belief” on the part of the officer that the Black man [regardless of his credentials or accomplishments] was out of place in a prestigious white neighborhood. The community, he thought, had to be protected from the presence of someone of color. At a second level, the officer apparently believed that a Black man, wrongly accused and inappropriately treated, had no right to challenge or question the actions of the officer.
Perhaps a more intelligent or more culturally competent officer would have diffused the situation and would have acknowledged the excessive questioning of Gates’ presence in his home as error. It is likely that such a response would have ended the encounter; Gates [being a teacher] would have felt that the officer had learned something in the encounter and would be unlikely to react as he did in the future. The officer’s response is typical of those who wield the legitimized authority to use force, but who are culturally stunted and perhaps intellectually challenged. The officer instead chose to react defensively and “put the Black man in his place” by arresting him. This case adds to the Black males' suspected crime portfolio experience of "driving while Black" and "shopping while Black" the new level of "entering your own home while Black."
There has been much debate in the selection of Judge Sotomayor as nominee for Supreme Court Justice about racial bias and the rule of law. That her cultural background may make her more sensitive to the context and fair application of the law than a white male judge with no similar exposure to cultural differences got conservatives up in arms and salivating like rabid dogs. Yet clearly a typical white judge with limited cultural competency may fail to see the injustice in the treatment of Gates, where someone with cultural competency would recognize the elements of racism in what transpired. Such competence is critical, whether that competency has been gained through learning and education, or through the inescapable experience of growing up in America as a person of color. Recognition of those elements by a jurist is essential to the administration of true justice and fair application of the rule of law.
Without understanding the reasons for Gates’ challenge to the officer and the impropriety and provocation in the officer’s prior actions, a judge might simply find a charge of disorderly conduct supportable. Authorities felt that the young woman, as a female and a student, deserved less respect and had fewer rights than an adult male would receive. It is a good thing that the court had the sensitivity to recognize that bias and consider it in applying the rule of law. It remains to be seen whether the same cultural competence is applied in the context of racial bias. Without the ability to tie construction of the letter of the law to the real world and real world experiences, including the pervasive cultural nuances that color and motivate the facts to which the law must be applied in American society, there will continue to be a racially divided system of justice in America, one for Blacks and another for Whites.
In one case, the question was whether a school system acted unlawfully in requiring the equivalent of a strip search of a young white student who authorities suspected of hiding prescription drugs. The court decided that the school authorities acted outside the law by treating the student inappropriately when they were not faced with any serious threat and they lacked sufficient evidence to suggest that the student was, in fact, in possession of any dangerous substance. The situation reflected a routine school policy enforcement process that got out of hand. Although the authorities had the right to maintain the policy against drug possession, the manner in which they enforced that policy was subject to constraints relating to the respectful treatment of a student suspect. Without sufficient justification and probable cause to believe that the student was violating the law or school policy, the school was not entitled to humiliate the young student by subjecting her to a search of her underwear. Moreover, the court suggested that the nature of the alleged violation should inform the nature of the enforcement response. In other words, if the student were suspected of gun possession accompanied by evidence of a threat against other students or staff, harsher treatment may have been justified. But in this case, suspicion of having Tylenol or some similarly innocuous substance did not justify the invasive assault on her person. The student's rights were violated by the humiliating treatment, the court ruled, although there was no force used, no arrest and the search was done by female officials in a private setting.
Now consider the case of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Returning home to his Cambridge, MA, house near Harvard Square, Gates found the front door stuck. After he and his driver were unable to open the door, he went around to the back door, unlocked it and went inside to disarm the alarm system and to unlock the front door. He then returned to the front door and again tried to open it forcefully and was successful. Apparently, a neighbor called police to report a break-in and a police officer came to the door to confront Gates. Understandably surprised, Gates first challenged the officer, who would not accept that Gates owned and belonged in the home, and then Gates showed him his Harvard Identification as well as his personal identification, proving that he lived at the house. This should have been the end of the incident, since the alarm system had not gone off and the resident had shown documented proof that he lived there.
In light of recent events at Harvard, including other instances in which Black male professionals have been targeted and detained or questioned by Harvard Security and Cambridge Police, Gates questioned the officer whether the same encounter would be happening if he had been a white professor. In particular, Gates questioned why the officer continued to treat him disrespectfully and with suspicion after having been presented with ample proof and documentation of Gates’ legitimate presence in the house. He demanded of the officer his name and badge number so that he could follow up. The officer refused and Gates was then arrested for “disorderly and tumultuous conduct” and placed in handcuffs and taken to jail. In addition to being one of Harvard’s most distinguished professors, Gates needs a cane to get around, so he obviously was not a threat to the officer or the community.
Most of the Harvard professional community hopes that the charges will be dropped and that the matter can be resolved peacefully. Other professors were stunned and disappointed by the treatment that Gates received. The underlying motif here was that a Black man did not belong in the neighborhood and could not possibly be a legitimate resident in a nice home in such a prestigious location. For that reason, the police officer was unwilling to follow what would have been typical protocol for a white citizen, and demanded additional proof that Gates belonged in the house. When questioned about the underlying racism, the officer responded defensively with the use of force to arrest Gates, not for any charge of unlawful entry onto property or breaking and entering, but for questioning the officer's authority.
The test will be whether the obvious racism that was the foundation for the actions of the officer are exposed. We will see whether the police are reprimanded or sanctioned as were the authorities in the student case. In the case of Gates, placing an elderly Black man in chains [an obviously humiliating and culturally insensitive action] and taking him to jail was at least as invasive as the search in the student case. The official justification was even weaker, because the officer had PROOF that there was no crime BEFORE making the arrest. In the student case, the administration still had at least a weak suspicion that the search would have revealed a violation of school policy.
Taking action that impacts some in a racially distinct way requires justification under current precedent. In the case of the white firefighters’ challenge to the New Haven authority's decision to abandon the results of a promotional exam because the results suggested improper race bias, the Court ruled that discriminatory treatment requires solid evidence rather than mental impressions or “belief” on the part of officials. The officer in the Gates incident clearly acted beyond his authority and the law, if this is the standard applied. There was no “evidence” of wrong or wrongdoing other than the racial stereotypical “belief” on the part of the officer that the Black man [regardless of his credentials or accomplishments] was out of place in a prestigious white neighborhood. The community, he thought, had to be protected from the presence of someone of color. At a second level, the officer apparently believed that a Black man, wrongly accused and inappropriately treated, had no right to challenge or question the actions of the officer.
Perhaps a more intelligent or more culturally competent officer would have diffused the situation and would have acknowledged the excessive questioning of Gates’ presence in his home as error. It is likely that such a response would have ended the encounter; Gates [being a teacher] would have felt that the officer had learned something in the encounter and would be unlikely to react as he did in the future. The officer’s response is typical of those who wield the legitimized authority to use force, but who are culturally stunted and perhaps intellectually challenged. The officer instead chose to react defensively and “put the Black man in his place” by arresting him. This case adds to the Black males' suspected crime portfolio experience of "driving while Black" and "shopping while Black" the new level of "entering your own home while Black."
There has been much debate in the selection of Judge Sotomayor as nominee for Supreme Court Justice about racial bias and the rule of law. That her cultural background may make her more sensitive to the context and fair application of the law than a white male judge with no similar exposure to cultural differences got conservatives up in arms and salivating like rabid dogs. Yet clearly a typical white judge with limited cultural competency may fail to see the injustice in the treatment of Gates, where someone with cultural competency would recognize the elements of racism in what transpired. Such competence is critical, whether that competency has been gained through learning and education, or through the inescapable experience of growing up in America as a person of color. Recognition of those elements by a jurist is essential to the administration of true justice and fair application of the rule of law.
Without understanding the reasons for Gates’ challenge to the officer and the impropriety and provocation in the officer’s prior actions, a judge might simply find a charge of disorderly conduct supportable. Authorities felt that the young woman, as a female and a student, deserved less respect and had fewer rights than an adult male would receive. It is a good thing that the court had the sensitivity to recognize that bias and consider it in applying the rule of law. It remains to be seen whether the same cultural competence is applied in the context of racial bias. Without the ability to tie construction of the letter of the law to the real world and real world experiences, including the pervasive cultural nuances that color and motivate the facts to which the law must be applied in American society, there will continue to be a racially divided system of justice in America, one for Blacks and another for Whites.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sotomayor Hearings: Much too much ado about NOTHING.
Does anyone truly believe that the Supreme Court Justices who denied freedom to the plaintiff in Plessey v. Ferguson, stating that the Black man had no rights regarding which the White man need be concerned, made the decision free of the inherent prejudices of personal ethnicity and upbringing? A brief look at the decisions of current Supreme Court Justice Scalia will show virtually NO decisions in which the rights of ethnic minorities have prevailed over Whites, despite his southern European heritage once viewed as a negative by the same power elite he currently bows down to. Roberts and Alito were chosen precisely because they would rely upon their White heritage to protect the interest of the WASP establishment from any significant attempt to protect or expand the rights of ethnic minorities [swiftly becoming majority]. Clearly the Right has been burned in the past,Rehnquist turned out not to be as racist as his right wing champions had hoped and O'Connor was virtually branded as a traitor. So they are very prickly about any attempt to rebalance the Court by appointment of a non-White female who is exceptionally bright and qualified.
So all this claptrap about Sotomayor persists in nonsense and hypocrisy. Sotomayor wisely acknowledged that her background gives her a perspective and backdrop against which she could evaluate issues that might come before her, and perhaps view them with greater sensitivity than someone from a more limited experiential background. There are, unfortunately, still people in the echelons of power who have never had a genuine encounter with an everyday person of color, a person in poverty or someone disenfranchised. These "select few" are the ones who Sessions and others of his stripe would prefer to see on the Supreme Court Bench. How sad. The very essence of the values upon which the country and the concept of a Supreme Court was supposedly founded lies in the ability to recognize, understand and empathize with people of any walk of life, ethnicity and socio-economic class.
The fallacy of slavish adherence to "law" or precedent is that many of those precedents were created by Courts and justices who lacked comprehension and empathy. This is where precedent can depart from "law." Prior decisions, stare decisis should not be cast aside lightly, but sometimes it is just plain WRONG, as in the example of Plessey v Ferguson. A wiser, more mature and empathic reading and interpretation of the "law" later obliged the Supreme Court to cast that decision aside. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." It is these small minds that are attempting to conjure fears built upon ignorance of the public [and perhaps their own] about the legal process and the selection of Judge Sotomayor.
By any objective measure, Judge Sotomayor is more qualified by intellect, maturity and experience, to be a Supreme Court Justice than half the men with who she will share the responsibilities of the Court. It is fondly to be wished that she will share that wisdom borne of her experiences [the quote being used to attack her] with those empathically stunted jurists with whom she will work. If she does, we can indeed hope for better and wiser decisions from the Court that reflect the rights, needs and interests of all Americans instead of decisions that merely use twists of sophistry and talismanic references to reliance upon the "law" to preserve and protect the current system that unjustly favors a small group of socio-economic elitists.
So all this claptrap about Sotomayor persists in nonsense and hypocrisy. Sotomayor wisely acknowledged that her background gives her a perspective and backdrop against which she could evaluate issues that might come before her, and perhaps view them with greater sensitivity than someone from a more limited experiential background. There are, unfortunately, still people in the echelons of power who have never had a genuine encounter with an everyday person of color, a person in poverty or someone disenfranchised. These "select few" are the ones who Sessions and others of his stripe would prefer to see on the Supreme Court Bench. How sad. The very essence of the values upon which the country and the concept of a Supreme Court was supposedly founded lies in the ability to recognize, understand and empathize with people of any walk of life, ethnicity and socio-economic class.
The fallacy of slavish adherence to "law" or precedent is that many of those precedents were created by Courts and justices who lacked comprehension and empathy. This is where precedent can depart from "law." Prior decisions, stare decisis should not be cast aside lightly, but sometimes it is just plain WRONG, as in the example of Plessey v Ferguson. A wiser, more mature and empathic reading and interpretation of the "law" later obliged the Supreme Court to cast that decision aside. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." It is these small minds that are attempting to conjure fears built upon ignorance of the public [and perhaps their own] about the legal process and the selection of Judge Sotomayor.
By any objective measure, Judge Sotomayor is more qualified by intellect, maturity and experience, to be a Supreme Court Justice than half the men with who she will share the responsibilities of the Court. It is fondly to be wished that she will share that wisdom borne of her experiences [the quote being used to attack her] with those empathically stunted jurists with whom she will work. If she does, we can indeed hope for better and wiser decisions from the Court that reflect the rights, needs and interests of all Americans instead of decisions that merely use twists of sophistry and talismanic references to reliance upon the "law" to preserve and protect the current system that unjustly favors a small group of socio-economic elitists.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
History Repeats Itself, Or A Reasonable Facsimile Thereof….
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.
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 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
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Cleaning up the Economic Environment
For too long the pundits and so called “experts” have submitted to the obstructionist politicians who have cast environmental responsibility as the opponent of economic development. The two are not even inconsistent, much less antithetical, if one has the intelligence and willpower to think things through. Let us consider a fairly simple premise. If the economy can generate trillions of dollars based upon carbon emission producing technologies, is it not logical that at least billions of dollars could be generated on technologies that reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions?
To be certain, the level of dependence that the world now has on carbon fuels and the existing supply lines for coal and petroleum suggest that such production and consumption will not go away in the near future. But much of the consumption that we are experiencing is a result of a lack of available alternatives. Let’s be clear, it is not a lack of viable alternatives, but rather a failure of the economy and vested corporate interests to make the viable alternatives available. Most of us are aware that automakers have owned and controlled fuel efficient technologies that they have buried and failed to make available in their products. It is also likely that the oil industry has patented technologies under control and hidden from the public that could reduce oil consumption. Power companies collectively have spent billions of dollars fighting regulations to retrofit coal fired plants with scrubbers and emissions cleaning technologies that have existed for decades.
There are signs of the air clearing a bit from this fog of polluted thinking. President Obama has signaled a desire and intention to seek a path toward more responsible environmental stewardship. In so doing, he has rejected the notion that such an approach would be too costly. Instead, he has posited that an aggressive investment in clean technologies provides an opportunity for economic growth and development. How refreshing to have a thinking President in the White House.
The United States, despite the declines in education and R&D over the past decade, still has the edge regarding the development of new technologies. This ingenuity, if supported by substantial investment, can develop and deliver technologies that are environmentally responsible and economically accessible. Young engineering students at MIT are developing solar energy systems that can be constructed from readily available used car parts. These inexpensive systems can be built and maintained in areas that are underdeveloped and provide clean energy sources for small factories that can employ local residents. Other bright young minds are developing water sanitation systems that are self supporting and can also be employed even in economically depressed areas.
The ramifications of these opportunities are staggering. Not only can such technologies help improve the environment, but they provide the opportunity for companies to manufacture, franchise and distribute these technologies throughout the world. On a global scale, the creation of jobs alone would be huge. The injection of new industries based upon clean and energy efficient technologies would boost the economies throughout the world. These are not environmental pipe dreams, but latent potential that we have simply failed to explore and exploit. The US has the chance to help the world recover economically from the economic disaster that it had a major role in creating, and in so doing reclaim a deserved position as leader of the free world.
The problem is that we have spent so much time looking down and staring at our feet that we have lost the ability to envision the sunrise. Moneyed interests have conditioned the people to limit their perspectives and to only focus on what serves the interests of those in financial control of the status quo. That control has widened the gap in socio-economic classes, destroyed economic opportunities and future prospects for the vast majority of middle and lower income families and continued the path of damage to the environment that Al Gore and environmental scientists have been warning us about for decades. It is time that we lifted our heads and elevated both our vision and our aspirations toward something better. We can revive the economy AND help to clean up the environmental damage at the same time. What better legacy to strive for and to leave to our grandchildren?
To be certain, the level of dependence that the world now has on carbon fuels and the existing supply lines for coal and petroleum suggest that such production and consumption will not go away in the near future. But much of the consumption that we are experiencing is a result of a lack of available alternatives. Let’s be clear, it is not a lack of viable alternatives, but rather a failure of the economy and vested corporate interests to make the viable alternatives available. Most of us are aware that automakers have owned and controlled fuel efficient technologies that they have buried and failed to make available in their products. It is also likely that the oil industry has patented technologies under control and hidden from the public that could reduce oil consumption. Power companies collectively have spent billions of dollars fighting regulations to retrofit coal fired plants with scrubbers and emissions cleaning technologies that have existed for decades.
There are signs of the air clearing a bit from this fog of polluted thinking. President Obama has signaled a desire and intention to seek a path toward more responsible environmental stewardship. In so doing, he has rejected the notion that such an approach would be too costly. Instead, he has posited that an aggressive investment in clean technologies provides an opportunity for economic growth and development. How refreshing to have a thinking President in the White House.
The United States, despite the declines in education and R&D over the past decade, still has the edge regarding the development of new technologies. This ingenuity, if supported by substantial investment, can develop and deliver technologies that are environmentally responsible and economically accessible. Young engineering students at MIT are developing solar energy systems that can be constructed from readily available used car parts. These inexpensive systems can be built and maintained in areas that are underdeveloped and provide clean energy sources for small factories that can employ local residents. Other bright young minds are developing water sanitation systems that are self supporting and can also be employed even in economically depressed areas.
The ramifications of these opportunities are staggering. Not only can such technologies help improve the environment, but they provide the opportunity for companies to manufacture, franchise and distribute these technologies throughout the world. On a global scale, the creation of jobs alone would be huge. The injection of new industries based upon clean and energy efficient technologies would boost the economies throughout the world. These are not environmental pipe dreams, but latent potential that we have simply failed to explore and exploit. The US has the chance to help the world recover economically from the economic disaster that it had a major role in creating, and in so doing reclaim a deserved position as leader of the free world.
The problem is that we have spent so much time looking down and staring at our feet that we have lost the ability to envision the sunrise. Moneyed interests have conditioned the people to limit their perspectives and to only focus on what serves the interests of those in financial control of the status quo. That control has widened the gap in socio-economic classes, destroyed economic opportunities and future prospects for the vast majority of middle and lower income families and continued the path of damage to the environment that Al Gore and environmental scientists have been warning us about for decades. It is time that we lifted our heads and elevated both our vision and our aspirations toward something better. We can revive the economy AND help to clean up the environmental damage at the same time. What better legacy to strive for and to leave to our grandchildren?
Piercing The Bubble
A recent article in the Washington Post illustrates an important issue regarding the modern process of governance in the White House, and the challenges that face President Obama as he seeks to deliver on his campaign promises. The article [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29448953/] details the nature of the seclusion and exclusion that envelops the President, all in the name of “security” and “efficiency.” These measures are what we commonly refer to as “the Bubble” inside which Presidents live. The challenge for Obama is to force Washington and the country’s politics to function in a different way, a new way, if the sad direction in which his predecessor took the country is to be altered. Yet how can a President effectively change the way business is done if he continues to do business in the same old ways? Surrounded by a large cadre of “assistants” and “Senior Advisors” who have an understandably vested interest in maintaining control of access to the President, because in the White House and in Washington access is power, the obstacle to objective leadership is in finding advisors who will tell him what he does not want to hear [but needs to know] as well as what he wants to hear.
Consider the quote from White House Staff Secretary Lisa Brown:
"The way I would frame the job is that I want to maximize his time," said Staff Secretary Lisa Brown, an assistant to the president who works out of an office on the ground floor of the West Wing. "So it's making sure that, when we send him something, it is what he wants to see, when he wants to see it, and we are helping him be as efficient as he could be."
While this formulation of the job is obviously well intentioned, it contains the seeds of serious problems. Who decides what and when Obama wants to see? Is it truly Obama or one of these staffers? Certainly, Obama does not have sufficient time to review all inputs that are sent to him. The array of issues and the amount of information needed daily is too vast for anyone to absorb in a day, a week or even a month. Yet there is also a maxim that Obama should recall, that he who frames the question controls the debate. In other words, if the options presented to Obama for decision are too biased or limited, then his thinking and decision making will be skewed in the direction that his staffers desire instead of being based upon the President’s own instincts, intelligence and beliefs.
Barack Obama has demonstrated his innate intelligence and we can only hope that he has taken the time to address this chronic problem. He has spent too much time seeking the Office and building the hopes of the country to allow that victory to be snatched from under him by a subverting staff. But a wise manager knows that sufficient time has to be spent on process if one seeks to assure effective and quality results. Obama needs to regularly review the staffing process in order to assure that his information input is not becoming skewed or myopic. In the tremendous power games of Washington, the forces seeking to control and delimit the options of the president are both strong and subtle. Obama has thrown down the gauntlet and publicly acknowledged that the lobbyist factions will attack his agenda any way they can and without scruple. But he must also recognize that within his circle of advisors there will be factions seeking to influence, if not control, his decision making.
It could easily be argued that his predecessor, George W. Bush, really did not know why he wanted to be President other than to acquire the Power and prestige of the position. Thus, it was fairly easy for Cheney and Rumsfeld to wrest control of the White House from him, effectively using ideology bound Senior Staff members who placed loyalty above competence. Their loyalty, however, was not to the president or the country, but rather to special interests who promised them hefty payoffs both during and after their time in the Bush Administration. In addition, Bush was not the brightest of men and was not intellectually active or curious. Consequently, he would have been unlikely to critically analyze what was going on around him and recognize that he was being “managed” instead of truly leading.
To date, Obama has shown that he is not entirely comfortable with the swarm of staffing that surrounds him and controls his time and movements. That is a GOOD sign, an instinct that he ought to preserve. As time and the pressures of the office begin to wear on Obama, as they inevitably will, he needs to revisit those instincts and determine whether it is truly HIS agenda that is being pursued. He must never forget that it is he that the people elected as President, and that his primary responsibility is to be himself. My own experience for decades as a lawyer and advisor, and working with other, has made me acutely sensitive to how easy it is for an advisor to forget that it is they who work for the client and not the reverse. Obama must seek to reaffirm and to remind the Staff and Senior Advisors that they work for him. It is not their place to set policy; rather they serve to assist the President in exploring all relevant options and ramifications in the process of helping HIM determine policy.
One of the major dangers of “the Bubble” is that one who is enveloped within it does not even recognize his occluded condition. Obama would do well to maintain, indeed insist upon, steps that fight against the seclusion and myopia that the traditional process creates. Trips outside the White House are important. But review of the internal process within the White House on a regular basis is perhaps even more important if Obama is to retain the reins of leadership in this Presidency.
Consider the quote from White House Staff Secretary Lisa Brown:
"The way I would frame the job is that I want to maximize his time," said Staff Secretary Lisa Brown, an assistant to the president who works out of an office on the ground floor of the West Wing. "So it's making sure that, when we send him something, it is what he wants to see, when he wants to see it, and we are helping him be as efficient as he could be."
While this formulation of the job is obviously well intentioned, it contains the seeds of serious problems. Who decides what and when Obama wants to see? Is it truly Obama or one of these staffers? Certainly, Obama does not have sufficient time to review all inputs that are sent to him. The array of issues and the amount of information needed daily is too vast for anyone to absorb in a day, a week or even a month. Yet there is also a maxim that Obama should recall, that he who frames the question controls the debate. In other words, if the options presented to Obama for decision are too biased or limited, then his thinking and decision making will be skewed in the direction that his staffers desire instead of being based upon the President’s own instincts, intelligence and beliefs.
Barack Obama has demonstrated his innate intelligence and we can only hope that he has taken the time to address this chronic problem. He has spent too much time seeking the Office and building the hopes of the country to allow that victory to be snatched from under him by a subverting staff. But a wise manager knows that sufficient time has to be spent on process if one seeks to assure effective and quality results. Obama needs to regularly review the staffing process in order to assure that his information input is not becoming skewed or myopic. In the tremendous power games of Washington, the forces seeking to control and delimit the options of the president are both strong and subtle. Obama has thrown down the gauntlet and publicly acknowledged that the lobbyist factions will attack his agenda any way they can and without scruple. But he must also recognize that within his circle of advisors there will be factions seeking to influence, if not control, his decision making.
It could easily be argued that his predecessor, George W. Bush, really did not know why he wanted to be President other than to acquire the Power and prestige of the position. Thus, it was fairly easy for Cheney and Rumsfeld to wrest control of the White House from him, effectively using ideology bound Senior Staff members who placed loyalty above competence. Their loyalty, however, was not to the president or the country, but rather to special interests who promised them hefty payoffs both during and after their time in the Bush Administration. In addition, Bush was not the brightest of men and was not intellectually active or curious. Consequently, he would have been unlikely to critically analyze what was going on around him and recognize that he was being “managed” instead of truly leading.
To date, Obama has shown that he is not entirely comfortable with the swarm of staffing that surrounds him and controls his time and movements. That is a GOOD sign, an instinct that he ought to preserve. As time and the pressures of the office begin to wear on Obama, as they inevitably will, he needs to revisit those instincts and determine whether it is truly HIS agenda that is being pursued. He must never forget that it is he that the people elected as President, and that his primary responsibility is to be himself. My own experience for decades as a lawyer and advisor, and working with other, has made me acutely sensitive to how easy it is for an advisor to forget that it is they who work for the client and not the reverse. Obama must seek to reaffirm and to remind the Staff and Senior Advisors that they work for him. It is not their place to set policy; rather they serve to assist the President in exploring all relevant options and ramifications in the process of helping HIM determine policy.
One of the major dangers of “the Bubble” is that one who is enveloped within it does not even recognize his occluded condition. Obama would do well to maintain, indeed insist upon, steps that fight against the seclusion and myopia that the traditional process creates. Trips outside the White House are important. But review of the internal process within the White House on a regular basis is perhaps even more important if Obama is to retain the reins of leadership in this Presidency.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Hope Rewarded, Faith Restored
With a single action, the stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama has initiated a ripple that may grow to a tidal wave of change impacting the US government, its citizens and the world at large. President Obama signed an Executive Order effectively declaring an end to the Bush “War on Terror.” In addition, he nullified legal opinions issued by Bush Administration lawyers regarding Presidential powers purportedly engendered by the “war” since September 11, 2001. The ramifications of this seemingly small action could be immense.
Many scholars and legal experts have questioned or challenged the basis upon which Bush grounded his claims of executive prerogatives and power, by simply declaring a “War on Terror.” To invoke true legal war powers, under the Constitution, there must actually be a war. Moreover, Congress holds a vital role in declaring such measures. That is how the US government is supposed to work. Instead, Bush contrived a phony peril, based upon fabricated “intelligence” information and hyperbolic Elmer Gantry style demagoguery, and duped Congress into authorizing military force in Iraq. Because the power grab could not be sustained or justified by the situation in Iraq alone, especially after the non-existence of “weapons of mass destruction” was revealed, Bush chose to declare war on an amorphous indefinable enemy – i.e. terror. Since the enemy could never be defined, it could never actually be defeated. That permitted Bush the opening to pursue a strategy of unbridled executive power for as long as he wished.
The strategy was as clever and cynical as it was evil and immoral. Any attempt to challenge or even uncover government actions of questionable legality could be met with a refusal to disclose information on the basis of “national security.” Any legal challenge to action that was revealed would be met with efforts to suppress or arguments that any restraint on executive discretion would harm efforts to fight “terrorism.” People were kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured and killed in the name of the US government and for the purpose of waging this war on an enemy that could not be identified or defined. In Joe McCarthy style persecutions, individuals with “alleged ties” to subversive or terrorist groups were held in prisons without charges and without any civil or human rights guaranteed under the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and protocols for humane treatment of prisoners. And the American people were told that it was too much of a security risk for the public to know what types of actions were being taken in its name.
Obama called a swift halt to this cynical mentality, as he presaged in his Inaugural Address. He had told us that it was a “false choice” to declare that protecting our safety and security required abandoning and ignoring the fundamental Constitutional principles the country was built upon and the standards of human decency that the International Community considers basic. To those who still harbored belief in the potential fidelity to democratic ideals and possible embodiment of humanity in US government policies, Obama rewarded their hope at a time when it seemed that the government was capable of stooping to almost unimaginable lows.
Apparently convinced that the standards, ideals and principles that have served reasonably well for centuries under severe testing could still serve to resolve any current threats, Obama reaffirmed the public’s faith in the principles that have allowed the US to claim moral world leadership for decades. Those principles had been ignored or abandoned by the Bush Administration, who brought the US to a level of disrepute not seen in many decades, if ever.
There is still much work to do in cleaning up the mess created by the prior Administration. However, this small initial act provides the impetus for a cleansing wave to wash away the stains left by the Bush Administration. Those still within positions of responsibility now know that the sophistry and lame excuses that were previously used to justify improper actions will no longer be considered valid. If a policy or practice is to be continued, it must be justified upon sound Constitutional principles and supported by the rule of law. As Obama told us this past Tuesday, only when government is responsible and accountable will the American people and the world be able to once again place faith and confidence in its actions and its leadership. But Obama has rewarded hope that a change for the better is possible; and he has reaffirmed faith that the ideals and principles of government by and for the people are not totally moribund. We can only hope that the small ripple will gain substantial momentum, for the magnitude of dirt and stain to be swept away is not yet known. Indeed, a tidal wave may well be what is required for the country’s honor to be washed clean again.
Many scholars and legal experts have questioned or challenged the basis upon which Bush grounded his claims of executive prerogatives and power, by simply declaring a “War on Terror.” To invoke true legal war powers, under the Constitution, there must actually be a war. Moreover, Congress holds a vital role in declaring such measures. That is how the US government is supposed to work. Instead, Bush contrived a phony peril, based upon fabricated “intelligence” information and hyperbolic Elmer Gantry style demagoguery, and duped Congress into authorizing military force in Iraq. Because the power grab could not be sustained or justified by the situation in Iraq alone, especially after the non-existence of “weapons of mass destruction” was revealed, Bush chose to declare war on an amorphous indefinable enemy – i.e. terror. Since the enemy could never be defined, it could never actually be defeated. That permitted Bush the opening to pursue a strategy of unbridled executive power for as long as he wished.
The strategy was as clever and cynical as it was evil and immoral. Any attempt to challenge or even uncover government actions of questionable legality could be met with a refusal to disclose information on the basis of “national security.” Any legal challenge to action that was revealed would be met with efforts to suppress or arguments that any restraint on executive discretion would harm efforts to fight “terrorism.” People were kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured and killed in the name of the US government and for the purpose of waging this war on an enemy that could not be identified or defined. In Joe McCarthy style persecutions, individuals with “alleged ties” to subversive or terrorist groups were held in prisons without charges and without any civil or human rights guaranteed under the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and protocols for humane treatment of prisoners. And the American people were told that it was too much of a security risk for the public to know what types of actions were being taken in its name.
Obama called a swift halt to this cynical mentality, as he presaged in his Inaugural Address. He had told us that it was a “false choice” to declare that protecting our safety and security required abandoning and ignoring the fundamental Constitutional principles the country was built upon and the standards of human decency that the International Community considers basic. To those who still harbored belief in the potential fidelity to democratic ideals and possible embodiment of humanity in US government policies, Obama rewarded their hope at a time when it seemed that the government was capable of stooping to almost unimaginable lows.
Apparently convinced that the standards, ideals and principles that have served reasonably well for centuries under severe testing could still serve to resolve any current threats, Obama reaffirmed the public’s faith in the principles that have allowed the US to claim moral world leadership for decades. Those principles had been ignored or abandoned by the Bush Administration, who brought the US to a level of disrepute not seen in many decades, if ever.
There is still much work to do in cleaning up the mess created by the prior Administration. However, this small initial act provides the impetus for a cleansing wave to wash away the stains left by the Bush Administration. Those still within positions of responsibility now know that the sophistry and lame excuses that were previously used to justify improper actions will no longer be considered valid. If a policy or practice is to be continued, it must be justified upon sound Constitutional principles and supported by the rule of law. As Obama told us this past Tuesday, only when government is responsible and accountable will the American people and the world be able to once again place faith and confidence in its actions and its leadership. But Obama has rewarded hope that a change for the better is possible; and he has reaffirmed faith that the ideals and principles of government by and for the people are not totally moribund. We can only hope that the small ripple will gain substantial momentum, for the magnitude of dirt and stain to be swept away is not yet known. Indeed, a tidal wave may well be what is required for the country’s honor to be washed clean again.
Monday, January 19, 2009
It Comes With the Job Description.
There has been much discussion regarding whether President-Elect Obama should or must authorize and initiate investigations and prosecution of illegal actions by President Bush and his Administration. All sorts of political dissembling have been advanced about “moving on” and letting bygones be bygones. Others argue that such investigations would be an unwelcome distraction when the nation faces a great deal of work simply to recover from the economic devastation wrought by unwise policies and unethical mismanagement by Bush officials. None of these arguments seem to carry as much weight as some more basic imperatives that, quite simply, cannot be avoided as part of the job Obama undertakes as he takes an oath of office.
Former Congressional Representative and former federal prosecutor from New York, Elizabeth Holtzman articulates perhaps the most compelling obligation in an article published in The Nation magazine:
There is another important reason for not "moving on." On January 20, Barack Obama will take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, which requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Much as President Obama might like to avoid controversy arising from investigations and prosecutions of high-level Bush administration officials, he cannot let them get away with breaking the law without violating his oath. His obligation to pursue justice in these cases is all the more serious given his acknowledgment that waterboarding is torture-which is a federal crime-and the vice president's recent admission of his involvement in and approval of "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
Moreover, under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, our government is obliged to bring to justice those who have violated the conventions. Although Bush smugly ignored his constitutional duty to enforce treaty obligations and laws that punish detainee mistreatment, Obama cannot follow the same lawless path.
Simply put, Obama swears to uphold the law and faithfully prosecute the laws of the United States. Where there is manifest probable cause and documented evidence of such violations, failure to investigate and to prosecute based upon strong evidence would be a dereliction of his Constitutional duty as chief law enforcement officer of the land. The recent Cheney public admission of authorizing measures that constitute torture, and the numerous other flagrant examples of obstruction of justice [including but not limited to concealing millions of e-mails that the law requires be preserved and held for public archives simply to impede court proceedings investigating corruption in the Justice Department] clearly constitute probable cause, if not veritable "smoking gun" evidence of criminality.
Holtzman goes on to argue that there are many reasons why this public responsibility should be honored, including the prospect that ignoring the violations will certainly encourage disregard for the laws and disrespect for law enforcement in the future. We are well aware that the notion of an “Imperial Presidency” was harbored in the breast of Cheney following the demise of his mentor, Richard Nixon. He clearly waited for the opportunity to advance the doctrine at a later time. It can be forcefully argued that fuller prosecution of the Nixon Administration, instead of the pardon, would have established the fallacy and illegality of that doctrine.
Moreover, the disregard – contempt even – for the public interest shown by Bush cronies and bank officials regarding the use of public bailout funds suggests a widespread belief in impunity for the rich and well connected, while the rest of the public is bound to comply with laws relating to unethical and illegal conduct. Only a thorough investigation of the misconduct, followed by appropriate prosecution for crimes when evidence suggests that prosecution is warranted, will break the spell of corruption and change the mindset that the US Government leadership is irretrievably corrupt.
The ability to truly “move on” in terms of implementing measures that will require huge sacrifice on the part of US citizens demands that some measure of faith be reestablished in the White House and its inhabitants. That process must begin with a Chief Executive who places high value in the oath of office that he takes to uphold and defend the Constitution and the rights that it guarantees to the citizens of the United States. Beyond this, the new President must show the world that there is a “new sheriff in town” and that past corruption and lawlessness will no longer be tolerated. Such bold steps are essential to reestablishing the belief of the world that the USA can still represent and stand up for the ideals and values embodied in its founding declarations. Otherwise, it is all just so much empty rhetoric. It is a tough course to follow, but it comes with the job description.
Former Congressional Representative and former federal prosecutor from New York, Elizabeth Holtzman articulates perhaps the most compelling obligation in an article published in The Nation magazine:
There is another important reason for not "moving on." On January 20, Barack Obama will take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, which requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Much as President Obama might like to avoid controversy arising from investigations and prosecutions of high-level Bush administration officials, he cannot let them get away with breaking the law without violating his oath. His obligation to pursue justice in these cases is all the more serious given his acknowledgment that waterboarding is torture-which is a federal crime-and the vice president's recent admission of his involvement in and approval of "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
Moreover, under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, our government is obliged to bring to justice those who have violated the conventions. Although Bush smugly ignored his constitutional duty to enforce treaty obligations and laws that punish detainee mistreatment, Obama cannot follow the same lawless path.
Simply put, Obama swears to uphold the law and faithfully prosecute the laws of the United States. Where there is manifest probable cause and documented evidence of such violations, failure to investigate and to prosecute based upon strong evidence would be a dereliction of his Constitutional duty as chief law enforcement officer of the land. The recent Cheney public admission of authorizing measures that constitute torture, and the numerous other flagrant examples of obstruction of justice [including but not limited to concealing millions of e-mails that the law requires be preserved and held for public archives simply to impede court proceedings investigating corruption in the Justice Department] clearly constitute probable cause, if not veritable "smoking gun" evidence of criminality.
Holtzman goes on to argue that there are many reasons why this public responsibility should be honored, including the prospect that ignoring the violations will certainly encourage disregard for the laws and disrespect for law enforcement in the future. We are well aware that the notion of an “Imperial Presidency” was harbored in the breast of Cheney following the demise of his mentor, Richard Nixon. He clearly waited for the opportunity to advance the doctrine at a later time. It can be forcefully argued that fuller prosecution of the Nixon Administration, instead of the pardon, would have established the fallacy and illegality of that doctrine.
Moreover, the disregard – contempt even – for the public interest shown by Bush cronies and bank officials regarding the use of public bailout funds suggests a widespread belief in impunity for the rich and well connected, while the rest of the public is bound to comply with laws relating to unethical and illegal conduct. Only a thorough investigation of the misconduct, followed by appropriate prosecution for crimes when evidence suggests that prosecution is warranted, will break the spell of corruption and change the mindset that the US Government leadership is irretrievably corrupt.
The ability to truly “move on” in terms of implementing measures that will require huge sacrifice on the part of US citizens demands that some measure of faith be reestablished in the White House and its inhabitants. That process must begin with a Chief Executive who places high value in the oath of office that he takes to uphold and defend the Constitution and the rights that it guarantees to the citizens of the United States. Beyond this, the new President must show the world that there is a “new sheriff in town” and that past corruption and lawlessness will no longer be tolerated. Such bold steps are essential to reestablishing the belief of the world that the USA can still represent and stand up for the ideals and values embodied in its founding declarations. Otherwise, it is all just so much empty rhetoric. It is a tough course to follow, but it comes with the job description.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Fool Me Twice....
Sometimes the handwriting is so clearly on the wall that it is simply amazing that it remains unread. As the federal government prepares to dole out the second half of the $700 Billion bailout fund authorized by Congress, documented evidence – the little that we do actually know about what happened to the bailout money already given to financial institutions – shows that these banks have no intent to use the public funds to help with the public’s economic crisis. Instead, Bank executives are using the public funds received to cover their backsides and bolster their balance sheets. Public needs be damned! Consider the following quote from a bank receiving about $300 million in public bailout funds:
At the Palm Beach Ritz-Carlton last November, John C. Hope III, the chairman of Whitney National Bank in New Orleans, stood before a ballroom full of Wall Street analysts and explained how his bank intended to use its $300 million in federal bailout money.
“Make more loans?” Mr. Hope said. “We’re not going to change our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the public sector as they see it to have us make more loans.”
Before we condemn the bankers, we ought to put their actions in context. They have been led to believe that the bailout money is a no-strings payback for their loyal support of the GOP controlling majority in Congress and unflinching support of all policies that Bush has implemented. They do not see any contradiction in private use of these public funds. These banks never believed that the true purpose of the bailout was to help the public. Instead, they convinced themselves that their institutions were either “too big to fail” or that they were too connected to the Bush administration to be allowed to fail. The “business model” that is referred to above has led these institutions to the verge of collapse, but these executives remain committed to that model. What the heads of these institutions are effectively saying is that they deserve to be bailed out, despite their own incompetence and mismanagement. As the old cliché reminds us, it is not what you know but rather who you know.
One of the difficulties that the American public has repeatedly faced in dealing with the Bush Administration is a failure to understand and accept the level of venality and corruption that lies at the very core of its policies and actions. There seems to be a yearning to find some level of integrity and humanity that simply has not been evidenced. Early in the Bush Administration, excuses were offered that the President was being duped by cynical and conspiratorial “handlers” like Cheney and Rumsfeld. To some extent, these agents did have their own agendas that they were able to execute through manipulating power and resources within the Bush Administration. However, it is now fairly inconceivable that the magnitude of corruption that pervades the Bush Administration could have proceeded without the knowledge and consent, if not at the express direction, of the President.
Thus, as decisions are made regarding further bailout funding, careful examination of the true intended purpose is required. In addition, strict measures to ensure that the funds are actually used for a public purpose must be attached to the disbursement of any additional funds. The first half of the $700 Billion was spent for the purposes that the Bush Administration intended. It simply was not the purpose that the public was led to believe was being served. The deceit must come to an end. If not, shame on us.
At the Palm Beach Ritz-Carlton last November, John C. Hope III, the chairman of Whitney National Bank in New Orleans, stood before a ballroom full of Wall Street analysts and explained how his bank intended to use its $300 million in federal bailout money.
“Make more loans?” Mr. Hope said. “We’re not going to change our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the public sector as they see it to have us make more loans.”
Before we condemn the bankers, we ought to put their actions in context. They have been led to believe that the bailout money is a no-strings payback for their loyal support of the GOP controlling majority in Congress and unflinching support of all policies that Bush has implemented. They do not see any contradiction in private use of these public funds. These banks never believed that the true purpose of the bailout was to help the public. Instead, they convinced themselves that their institutions were either “too big to fail” or that they were too connected to the Bush administration to be allowed to fail. The “business model” that is referred to above has led these institutions to the verge of collapse, but these executives remain committed to that model. What the heads of these institutions are effectively saying is that they deserve to be bailed out, despite their own incompetence and mismanagement. As the old cliché reminds us, it is not what you know but rather who you know.
One of the difficulties that the American public has repeatedly faced in dealing with the Bush Administration is a failure to understand and accept the level of venality and corruption that lies at the very core of its policies and actions. There seems to be a yearning to find some level of integrity and humanity that simply has not been evidenced. Early in the Bush Administration, excuses were offered that the President was being duped by cynical and conspiratorial “handlers” like Cheney and Rumsfeld. To some extent, these agents did have their own agendas that they were able to execute through manipulating power and resources within the Bush Administration. However, it is now fairly inconceivable that the magnitude of corruption that pervades the Bush Administration could have proceeded without the knowledge and consent, if not at the express direction, of the President.
Thus, as decisions are made regarding further bailout funding, careful examination of the true intended purpose is required. In addition, strict measures to ensure that the funds are actually used for a public purpose must be attached to the disbursement of any additional funds. The first half of the $700 Billion was spent for the purposes that the Bush Administration intended. It simply was not the purpose that the public was led to believe was being served. The deceit must come to an end. If not, shame on us.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Isn’t it Possible?
News reports of the current trip by President-elect Obama as he heads toward the Capitol for his historic inauguration raise feelings of exhilaration and hope. Perhaps more importantly than anything, his journey represents the manifestation of the “possible.” Many in the United States of America had not envisioned, though they had perhaps dreamed, of the possibility of a President of color. During the past eight years, clouded by contrived and amplified fear, the country has not been able to look forward. The country has been in the mindset of a crowd riding a sabotaged roller coaster over the crest and plunging toward the bottom. Scared out of their wits, the crowd’s only focus has been on whether it would survive the plunge.
The crowd has been unable to focus on what has actually been happening, oblivious to the deceit that led them to board the ride and unable to muster the discipline to halt the potentially fatal dive. Now the country is in the throes of the worst economic disaster it has faced in more than 70 years. In addition, the country has been further weakened by the wasted commitment of more than a trillion dollars to a manufactured “war.”
The preparations for the inauguration are unprecedented in terms of anti-terrorist measures. Tanks, barriers, electronic surveillance and much more have been planned and put in place to avert a terrorist attack. At the risk of cynicism or even naiveté, perhaps the truth is that the terrorist are not eager to destroy this opportunity for hope and a positive step into the future.
The secret service states that there are no credible threats of a terrorist attack relating to the inauguration. It would be foolish to discount the possibility of some lunatic who might plot to take the life of the incoming President. Yet is it not possible that Obama represents something quite different than did George W. Bush, and his “bring it on” arrogance and provocation? Rather than foolish bravado and divisive antagonism toward imagined and created “enemies,” Obama represents calm, intelligent and rational consideration of realistic problems.
The incoming President states that he will carefully assess problems that he faces and that he will sit down with both friends and enemies in order to attempt to find peaceful and constructive solutions. His predecessor, in contrast, views the world in terms of “good and evil” and refuses to even communicate with those that he has placed in the category of his “enemies.” The old President offers his opponents only the option of violence and vengeful response to hateful rhetoric and actions. The new president offers the possibility of new and different options. There is a reality to the cliche about "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." One who casts the world and relationships only in terms of have, division and enmity will generate a corresponding level of fear, distrust and hatred against him. In many ways, the climate of fear and risk to security that pervades is the creation of the policies and attitudes of George W. Bush and his small minded politics. Obama has called upon the United States and the world to turn away from small minded and divisive politics and to look toward the possibility of a more enlightened future.
The headwinds of challenge into which Obama will step as he takes the oath of office suggest to us the monumental courage that the man who will become the 44th President has. Yet he seems confident, humble and prepared for the undertaking. And perhaps more than any President in recent history, there is a huge supporting population that yearns for his success, a cadre that dreams of the possible.
The crowd has been unable to focus on what has actually been happening, oblivious to the deceit that led them to board the ride and unable to muster the discipline to halt the potentially fatal dive. Now the country is in the throes of the worst economic disaster it has faced in more than 70 years. In addition, the country has been further weakened by the wasted commitment of more than a trillion dollars to a manufactured “war.”
The preparations for the inauguration are unprecedented in terms of anti-terrorist measures. Tanks, barriers, electronic surveillance and much more have been planned and put in place to avert a terrorist attack. At the risk of cynicism or even naiveté, perhaps the truth is that the terrorist are not eager to destroy this opportunity for hope and a positive step into the future.
The secret service states that there are no credible threats of a terrorist attack relating to the inauguration. It would be foolish to discount the possibility of some lunatic who might plot to take the life of the incoming President. Yet is it not possible that Obama represents something quite different than did George W. Bush, and his “bring it on” arrogance and provocation? Rather than foolish bravado and divisive antagonism toward imagined and created “enemies,” Obama represents calm, intelligent and rational consideration of realistic problems.
The incoming President states that he will carefully assess problems that he faces and that he will sit down with both friends and enemies in order to attempt to find peaceful and constructive solutions. His predecessor, in contrast, views the world in terms of “good and evil” and refuses to even communicate with those that he has placed in the category of his “enemies.” The old President offers his opponents only the option of violence and vengeful response to hateful rhetoric and actions. The new president offers the possibility of new and different options. There is a reality to the cliche about "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." One who casts the world and relationships only in terms of have, division and enmity will generate a corresponding level of fear, distrust and hatred against him. In many ways, the climate of fear and risk to security that pervades is the creation of the policies and attitudes of George W. Bush and his small minded politics. Obama has called upon the United States and the world to turn away from small minded and divisive politics and to look toward the possibility of a more enlightened future.
The headwinds of challenge into which Obama will step as he takes the oath of office suggest to us the monumental courage that the man who will become the 44th President has. Yet he seems confident, humble and prepared for the undertaking. And perhaps more than any President in recent history, there is a huge supporting population that yearns for his success, a cadre that dreams of the possible.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
“All in All, It’s Just Another Stone in the Wall.” [Apologies to Zappa]
One day after a federal court judge ordered the Justice Department to undertake a sincere and thorough search for millions of White house E-mails that the Bush Administration has been contending “may” have been missing for the past 4 years, the Justice Department represented today in a sworn statement to the court that the E-mails have miraculously been “found.”
In an historic example of deliberate obstruction of justice at the highest levels of government not seen since the Nixon era, the Administration of George W. Bush has tacitly admitted to stonewalling Congress and the courts who were seeking to determine the Office of the President and Vice President involvement in and authorization of illegal and unconstitutional activities. Those activities ranged from exerting improper political influence on screening and appointment of government employees in the Justice department and other Agencies to sanctioning interrogation and spying activities that contravene the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
The logical and apparent reasons for stonewalling Congress and the judicial system were to avoid probable impeachment. The tragedy is that when the highest law enforcement official in the most powerful country on the planet corrupts the system in order to cover up his own criminal activity, the foundation of the system of representative democracy fails. The protection of the civil rights of each individual citizen lies in the principle that no man is above the law. Whether based upon pure arrogance or upon some contrived theory of an “Imperial Presidency,” the notion that the President can do whatever he chooses and is immune from constraints established in the laws of the nation is pure hubris.
Moreover, the audacity shown by the Bush Administration in withholding evidence that it was legally bound to disclose, for no reason other than to obstruct justice, is amazing. Even more stunning is that Bush and Cheney are likely to get away with the stonewalling and obstruction without even the least formal sanction. The press has proven a toothless watchdog at best, and a willing accomplice at worst. This, more than anything, shows the degree to which the system of government supposedly “by and for the people” and supposedly protected by "checks and balances" has been corrupted and degraded.
Some would argue that pursuit of Bush Administration officials for misconduct amounts to political retribution, payback by the victors for abuse by the GOP when it was in power. That is how GOP stalwarts and Bush apologists would like to see the scenario play out. Such dismissal would be cynical, untrue and unfortunate. It is natural and appropriate when serious damage has been done or a system has seriously malfunctioned as a result of a series of events to conduct a thorough inquiry to determine the cause of the damage and the nature of the malfunction. This is practical and remedial; it is common sense and not vengeance. Only by carefully examining what happened can we hope to repair the damage and to prevent similar harm in the future.
But all in all, the cynical and arrogant behavior of the Bush Administration is simply in keeping with its form for the past eight years. Vice President Cheney in his parting interviews bluntly challenged the American people, the press and the media with comments to the effect "what are you going to do about it? He admitted to authorization of activities that the rest of civilized society considers torture and was unrepentant. In establishing a bulwark between his elitist cronies and the rest of the American people, in erecting a protective barrier to prevent being held accountable for criminal and inhumane actions that have disgraced a nation, the obstruction of justice by withholding e-mails was just “another brick in the wall.”
In an historic example of deliberate obstruction of justice at the highest levels of government not seen since the Nixon era, the Administration of George W. Bush has tacitly admitted to stonewalling Congress and the courts who were seeking to determine the Office of the President and Vice President involvement in and authorization of illegal and unconstitutional activities. Those activities ranged from exerting improper political influence on screening and appointment of government employees in the Justice department and other Agencies to sanctioning interrogation and spying activities that contravene the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
The logical and apparent reasons for stonewalling Congress and the judicial system were to avoid probable impeachment. The tragedy is that when the highest law enforcement official in the most powerful country on the planet corrupts the system in order to cover up his own criminal activity, the foundation of the system of representative democracy fails. The protection of the civil rights of each individual citizen lies in the principle that no man is above the law. Whether based upon pure arrogance or upon some contrived theory of an “Imperial Presidency,” the notion that the President can do whatever he chooses and is immune from constraints established in the laws of the nation is pure hubris.
Moreover, the audacity shown by the Bush Administration in withholding evidence that it was legally bound to disclose, for no reason other than to obstruct justice, is amazing. Even more stunning is that Bush and Cheney are likely to get away with the stonewalling and obstruction without even the least formal sanction. The press has proven a toothless watchdog at best, and a willing accomplice at worst. This, more than anything, shows the degree to which the system of government supposedly “by and for the people” and supposedly protected by "checks and balances" has been corrupted and degraded.
Some would argue that pursuit of Bush Administration officials for misconduct amounts to political retribution, payback by the victors for abuse by the GOP when it was in power. That is how GOP stalwarts and Bush apologists would like to see the scenario play out. Such dismissal would be cynical, untrue and unfortunate. It is natural and appropriate when serious damage has been done or a system has seriously malfunctioned as a result of a series of events to conduct a thorough inquiry to determine the cause of the damage and the nature of the malfunction. This is practical and remedial; it is common sense and not vengeance. Only by carefully examining what happened can we hope to repair the damage and to prevent similar harm in the future.
But all in all, the cynical and arrogant behavior of the Bush Administration is simply in keeping with its form for the past eight years. Vice President Cheney in his parting interviews bluntly challenged the American people, the press and the media with comments to the effect "what are you going to do about it? He admitted to authorization of activities that the rest of civilized society considers torture and was unrepentant. In establishing a bulwark between his elitist cronies and the rest of the American people, in erecting a protective barrier to prevent being held accountable for criminal and inhumane actions that have disgraced a nation, the obstruction of justice by withholding e-mails was just “another brick in the wall.”
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Thou Dost Protest Too Much, Methinks.
In two separate pieces of political theatre in the past few days, we have been served up excellent examples of what causes us to distrust and dislike politicians and Washington, DC. If the politicians involved were able to step back from the blinding glare of their own narcissism, they might be able to see the foolishness of their behavior. Yet their life in a self created bubble apparently causes them to be oblivious to common sense and in some cases common decency.
In the first example, the leader of the opposition GOP forces suggested that the Republican minority might delay or impede the passage of a much needed stimulus package. Sen. John Boehner, in an act of political grandstanding, announced that his caucus was very concerned about the prospect of a projected “trillion dollar” national deficit as a result of a proposed stimulus. He complained that the price tag was so large that it would have to be “borne by future generations.”
Sen. Boehner did not, however, explain where this solicitude was hiding when he and his “Conservative” cohorts beat down every attempt [Democrat or GOP initiated] to restrain spending for the Iraq fiasco. Where was this concern when a multi-Billion dollar surplus was plundered by an incompetent administration and turned into a half-Trillion dollar deficit? The US Treasury was being looted by President Bush to pay for a military adventure and “phony war” while the Iraqi Treasury ran a multi-Billion dollar surplus. Boehner implicitly accused any dissenters as being unpatriotic and irresponsible for not backing the President. Meanwhile, the tab to be paid by present and future generations of taxpayers grew wildly.
Such public posturing and patent hypocrisy by so-called “Leaders” may be the reason why so many in the United States are turned off when the subject of public service comes up. Representatives like Boehner point out the inconsistency of the term, making it often appear an oxymoron. It would indeed be difficult to explain how Boehner’s position is in the interest of the public. It was nothing more than public grandstanding for self-aggrandizement, to show that he still considers himself a force to be reckoned with in Congress, despite the drubbing his party took in the polls and the disaster the country faces as a result of his cabal's failure of leadership.
More recently, former Illinois Attorney General Burris showed up at the inaugural of the new 111th Congress and was turned away because he lacked proper credential certification. This political theatre was intended to embarrass the new Democratic Congress in its refusal to seat a fellow Democrat. So Burris went outside and held separate press conferences posing as the badly treated stepchild and “victim” of unfair treatment.
Burris has been, up until now, a respected public servant and should have displayed more character. First, he knew full well that the Illinois Secretary of State had refused to certify his appointment to fill the seat vacated by President-Elect Obama. The reason is that the appointment was made by Gov. Blagojevich who is under investigation and impending indictment for attempting to sell the appointment for personal gain. No matter how qualified, the appointment of anyone by Blagojevich, is suspect and the person so appointed would fall under that shadow unless and until the matter is cleared up.
Second, knowing that the proper credentials were lacking, only an egotistical politician would choose to mar the historical event of the inauguration of the new Congress by drawing personal attention to a personal dispute that he knew could not be resolved. The Senate had previously informed him that he would not be seated that day. Greater character would have been shown by staying away and continuing to work with Senate leadership and the Illinois authorities to resolve the matter. There is no apparent evidence that Burris was involved in the scheming by Blagojevich. As a result, a formal process of inquiry would have cleared him and allowed the Senate to seat him free of any taint. Instead, Burris chose to act like a typical political clown and seek the spotlight to demand personal attention and to implicitly support the improper and corrupt behavior of Gov. Blagojevich. Such behavior can only lower public perception of Burris. It also might lower public opinion of politicians, if there were room for descent in the level of opinion the public now holds.
In the first example, the leader of the opposition GOP forces suggested that the Republican minority might delay or impede the passage of a much needed stimulus package. Sen. John Boehner, in an act of political grandstanding, announced that his caucus was very concerned about the prospect of a projected “trillion dollar” national deficit as a result of a proposed stimulus. He complained that the price tag was so large that it would have to be “borne by future generations.”
Sen. Boehner did not, however, explain where this solicitude was hiding when he and his “Conservative” cohorts beat down every attempt [Democrat or GOP initiated] to restrain spending for the Iraq fiasco. Where was this concern when a multi-Billion dollar surplus was plundered by an incompetent administration and turned into a half-Trillion dollar deficit? The US Treasury was being looted by President Bush to pay for a military adventure and “phony war” while the Iraqi Treasury ran a multi-Billion dollar surplus. Boehner implicitly accused any dissenters as being unpatriotic and irresponsible for not backing the President. Meanwhile, the tab to be paid by present and future generations of taxpayers grew wildly.
Such public posturing and patent hypocrisy by so-called “Leaders” may be the reason why so many in the United States are turned off when the subject of public service comes up. Representatives like Boehner point out the inconsistency of the term, making it often appear an oxymoron. It would indeed be difficult to explain how Boehner’s position is in the interest of the public. It was nothing more than public grandstanding for self-aggrandizement, to show that he still considers himself a force to be reckoned with in Congress, despite the drubbing his party took in the polls and the disaster the country faces as a result of his cabal's failure of leadership.
More recently, former Illinois Attorney General Burris showed up at the inaugural of the new 111th Congress and was turned away because he lacked proper credential certification. This political theatre was intended to embarrass the new Democratic Congress in its refusal to seat a fellow Democrat. So Burris went outside and held separate press conferences posing as the badly treated stepchild and “victim” of unfair treatment.
Burris has been, up until now, a respected public servant and should have displayed more character. First, he knew full well that the Illinois Secretary of State had refused to certify his appointment to fill the seat vacated by President-Elect Obama. The reason is that the appointment was made by Gov. Blagojevich who is under investigation and impending indictment for attempting to sell the appointment for personal gain. No matter how qualified, the appointment of anyone by Blagojevich, is suspect and the person so appointed would fall under that shadow unless and until the matter is cleared up.
Second, knowing that the proper credentials were lacking, only an egotistical politician would choose to mar the historical event of the inauguration of the new Congress by drawing personal attention to a personal dispute that he knew could not be resolved. The Senate had previously informed him that he would not be seated that day. Greater character would have been shown by staying away and continuing to work with Senate leadership and the Illinois authorities to resolve the matter. There is no apparent evidence that Burris was involved in the scheming by Blagojevich. As a result, a formal process of inquiry would have cleared him and allowed the Senate to seat him free of any taint. Instead, Burris chose to act like a typical political clown and seek the spotlight to demand personal attention and to implicitly support the improper and corrupt behavior of Gov. Blagojevich. Such behavior can only lower public perception of Burris. It also might lower public opinion of politicians, if there were room for descent in the level of opinion the public now holds.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Obama and the Rule of Law
As Barack Obama enters office, he will be faced with one of many problems created by the Bush administration, the case of Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, No. 08-368 that will go before the US Supreme Court. The case involves a Qatari man who was captured while in the US legally and has been held indefinitely without charges as an “enemy combatant.” The case will challenge Obama to state his position with respect to the operation of the rule of law in the United States and the primacy of the US Constitution. Under a rule of law, a person has the right to know what crimes he is being charged with, the right to see and confront evidence against him and the right to defense in a speedy trial. None of these Constitutional protections have been afforded Al-Marri.
Bush administration officials claim that the man is “too dangerous” to be allowed free as he might provide aid to Al Qaida or other terrorist groups. Yet these vague assertions are not backed up by any coherent supporting facts. They amount to a standard that if a president declares someone dangerous, that person is stripped of all due process rights. The US judiciary has forced the Bush administration to defend its position by requiring the hearing on the Al-Marri case. Now Obama will be obliged to submit a brief stating his position on the matter. Looking for clues as to Obama’s approach, the New York Times cited the following in an article:
A year ago, Mr. Obama answered a detailed questionnaire concerning his views on presidential power from The Boston Globe. “I reject the Bush administration’s claim,” Mr. Obama said, “that the president has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”
However, this response partially sidesteps the core issue. Bush’s claim to authority is that he has the power as President that exceeds the US Constitution in times of war. This raises an old legal conceptual question whether an office can exceed the authority of the law or body that creates it. Traditional restraint and a desire to avoid the excesses of King George III that led to the American Revolution have caused the judiciary to reject such arguments of an “Imperial Presidency” in favor of protecting the balance of powers that is built into the fundament of US government and embodied in the Constitution.
Some of the legal issues have been obscured by racist antipathy because the detainee is Muslim. However, the strength of a legal system is not in its ability to deal justly with the popular cases, but rather with those that present unpopular contestants or issues. Much of the Bush argument is based upon fear mongering and deliberately fomented hatred of Arabs and Muslims precipitated by his own political agenda. Part of the Bush administration argument must rest upon the assertion that Al-Marri is not entitled to protection under the Constitution. However, many cases have established and upheld the principle that the Constitution speaks to the limits of authority of the government and the means that it may use to enforce laws. There is no clear legal answer why the detainee cannot be tried under traditional principles of jurisprudence and due process that this country has stood for in the past. If he has committed acts of terrorism or tangible support to terrorist organizations, let that be proven in court.
This, however, brings us to the tangled web of the Bush administration fiasco, again as cited in the New York Time article:
Another alternative for the new administration is to prosecute Mr. Marri as a criminal. But it is not clear that there is admissible evidence against him.
The basic problem is that the supposed evidence upon which the Bush administration would rely to imprison Al-Marri is based upon torture. This presents several major problems for Bush. First, to be required to present such evidence would expose the Bush administration to potential war crimes prosecution. Second, the evidence would be inadmissible as such evidence is deemed inherently unreliable. Third, to maintain prosecution on a theory that the government cannot charge the defendant and cannot prove the basis for his detention would stand basic principles of law and criminal jurisprudence on end. It is simply irrational. Beyond that, to continue to indefinitely detain a man without charges simply to avoid embarrassment to the Bush administration relating to its use of internationally outlawed interrogation practices would undermine basic principles of justice and human rights.
What makes very little sense from an objective standpoint is why the case even need reach the Supreme Court. There is no one man who is so dangerous that he cannot be subjected to the rule of law. If, as happens routinely, Al-Marri were acquitted because of illegal interrogation or police abuse, he would be one of the most scrutinized men on earth. It is doubtful he could ever present any real threat approximating the imaginary one concocted by the Bush administration. If the threat were genuine, the Bush administration would not be so reluctant to put it forward for judicial scrutiny. The case is about power and prerogatives, and about whether the President is subject to the Constitution. Even the purported “war” that the Bush administration uses to support its exercise of presumed war powers is a fabrication. So the Bush administration argument is a legal house of cards.
Hopefully, Obama will exercise his rigorous legal training and sense of integrity to submit a brief that disavows the expansive claims of the Bush administration. In doing so, he will make great strides toward bringing the country back onto the course of a “rule of law.” To fail to do so simply suggests that we can expect more of the same politically corrupted jurisprudence and sophistry that we have experienced under the Bush regime.
Bush administration officials claim that the man is “too dangerous” to be allowed free as he might provide aid to Al Qaida or other terrorist groups. Yet these vague assertions are not backed up by any coherent supporting facts. They amount to a standard that if a president declares someone dangerous, that person is stripped of all due process rights. The US judiciary has forced the Bush administration to defend its position by requiring the hearing on the Al-Marri case. Now Obama will be obliged to submit a brief stating his position on the matter. Looking for clues as to Obama’s approach, the New York Times cited the following in an article:
A year ago, Mr. Obama answered a detailed questionnaire concerning his views on presidential power from The Boston Globe. “I reject the Bush administration’s claim,” Mr. Obama said, “that the president has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”
However, this response partially sidesteps the core issue. Bush’s claim to authority is that he has the power as President that exceeds the US Constitution in times of war. This raises an old legal conceptual question whether an office can exceed the authority of the law or body that creates it. Traditional restraint and a desire to avoid the excesses of King George III that led to the American Revolution have caused the judiciary to reject such arguments of an “Imperial Presidency” in favor of protecting the balance of powers that is built into the fundament of US government and embodied in the Constitution.
Some of the legal issues have been obscured by racist antipathy because the detainee is Muslim. However, the strength of a legal system is not in its ability to deal justly with the popular cases, but rather with those that present unpopular contestants or issues. Much of the Bush argument is based upon fear mongering and deliberately fomented hatred of Arabs and Muslims precipitated by his own political agenda. Part of the Bush administration argument must rest upon the assertion that Al-Marri is not entitled to protection under the Constitution. However, many cases have established and upheld the principle that the Constitution speaks to the limits of authority of the government and the means that it may use to enforce laws. There is no clear legal answer why the detainee cannot be tried under traditional principles of jurisprudence and due process that this country has stood for in the past. If he has committed acts of terrorism or tangible support to terrorist organizations, let that be proven in court.
This, however, brings us to the tangled web of the Bush administration fiasco, again as cited in the New York Time article:
Another alternative for the new administration is to prosecute Mr. Marri as a criminal. But it is not clear that there is admissible evidence against him.
The basic problem is that the supposed evidence upon which the Bush administration would rely to imprison Al-Marri is based upon torture. This presents several major problems for Bush. First, to be required to present such evidence would expose the Bush administration to potential war crimes prosecution. Second, the evidence would be inadmissible as such evidence is deemed inherently unreliable. Third, to maintain prosecution on a theory that the government cannot charge the defendant and cannot prove the basis for his detention would stand basic principles of law and criminal jurisprudence on end. It is simply irrational. Beyond that, to continue to indefinitely detain a man without charges simply to avoid embarrassment to the Bush administration relating to its use of internationally outlawed interrogation practices would undermine basic principles of justice and human rights.
What makes very little sense from an objective standpoint is why the case even need reach the Supreme Court. There is no one man who is so dangerous that he cannot be subjected to the rule of law. If, as happens routinely, Al-Marri were acquitted because of illegal interrogation or police abuse, he would be one of the most scrutinized men on earth. It is doubtful he could ever present any real threat approximating the imaginary one concocted by the Bush administration. If the threat were genuine, the Bush administration would not be so reluctant to put it forward for judicial scrutiny. The case is about power and prerogatives, and about whether the President is subject to the Constitution. Even the purported “war” that the Bush administration uses to support its exercise of presumed war powers is a fabrication. So the Bush administration argument is a legal house of cards.
Hopefully, Obama will exercise his rigorous legal training and sense of integrity to submit a brief that disavows the expansive claims of the Bush administration. In doing so, he will make great strides toward bringing the country back onto the course of a “rule of law.” To fail to do so simply suggests that we can expect more of the same politically corrupted jurisprudence and sophistry that we have experienced under the Bush regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)