It appears that leaders of both parties in Congress have raised a protest over the search and seizure at the Capitol Office Building in connection with investigations of bribery and corruption by sitting Congressional representatives. Among the targets of the raid was Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana, alleged to have taken a bribe of $100k in exchange for legislative assistance and support.
What needs to be put aside, for the moment, is the absurd defense that the search was motivated solely by politics from the GOP to diffuse the current level of scandal by the scores of GOP Congressional representatives. Whether that contention of political timing is partially true or not, and it probably has some veracity in the current climate, misses the point. Two wrongs do not make a right. If there is actual concrete and credible evidence that Jefferson accepted bribes, he should be brought down. The same standard should apply to Cunningham, Delay, Bob Ney, and the entire list. What must be condemned is the culture of corruption that would attempt to shield any member of Congress, of ANY political party, from legal prosecution for malfeasance in office.
The greater problem has been the debilitating willingness of Congress to look the other way and attempt to defer, divert or sabotage legitimate inquiry into misconduct by political leaders based upon their political party affiliation. The attempt to shield Delay failed, but only because his misconduct was so blatant and widespread that no blanket of secrecy could conceal it. In fact, his penchant for riding roughshod over his allies and enemies diminished the number of "troops" willing to back him when the "hammer" fell upon him [rather than being wielded by him].
But legitimate attempts to inquire into misconduct by the White House staff, the Vice President and the President have been consistently thwarted by partisan protectionism. If the underlying "facts" and "evidence" were not damning, why not publicly air the legitimate questions and concerns? To do so in an orderly manner, if the result were to exonerate the White House, would be a healthy housecleaning process for the psyche of this country. At present, most people believe that the President has broken the law. A stalwart 30% are immune and will never believe that Bush has done wrong, no matter what facts or evidence are established. But the rest of us labor under a cloud of shame and doubt, believing that our President has held himself above the law and disgraced our country, but also knowing that the institution of government has been so thoroughly corrupted that he will never be held accountable for his actions and decisions, no matter what loss of life and damage to the country he has inflicted.
The country required a process of healing and psychological reconciliation after the Viet Nam War and the Nixon Watergate Scandal. To a limited degree, the country began to believe that government could have a valid and salutary purpose. Playing upon the latent scars of doubt, however, the Reagan Revolution cast the government as "bad" and "wasteful" and led to the GOP ascendancy. The Newt Gingrich led PR revolution used psycholinguistics to label almost any beneficial public function of government as "liberal" which he cast as a pejorative term.
During the Clinton Administration, the country saw proof that the government could function in a supportive and somewhat healthy manner, even when the Commander in Chief may have been vain and venal. In other words, the "institution" of government could function for the benefit of the people, even when the individual political leader faltered. Clinton left office with the economy in good condition, a budget surplus and no impending foreign policy crisis.
Since that time, however, the budget deficit has grown to levels unseen in the entire history of the nation, we have been deliberately embroiled in an unnecessary foreign conflict that has cost tens of thousands of lives, the government has grown in size by a substantial percentage, the public "till" has been left open for large corporations favored by the White House to dip from without competitive bidding or accountability for fraud and mismanagement, and the list of decline goes on. The functioning of the current national government appears to be focused upon how the wealthy elite can loot the public coffers, with little regard for the public welfare functions for which the government was founded. Public safety, disaster relief, public education, public health are all at the bottom of the list of priorities. Attention is diverted to the Bogeyman of "terrorism" that is used to exploit racist and xenophobic fears of the uneducated and unthinking populace.
Our nation, once respected as a true world leader, is now viewed as a paper tiger with an unpredictable fool at the reins. Beyond our borders, the US is feared more for what misguided and foolish act it might undertake, than for its ability to marshal universal support for a just policy or initiative. The world and global markets are reacting to the US policy respecting Iran with nervousness, not because of the rectitude and wisdom of the Bush administration position, but because Bush might just be foolish enough to launch an attack on Iran [perhaps even a nuclear attack].
Good government stems from respect for the institutions of government, respect for the positions held by the public servants in those positions, and a resulting respect for the actions and policies that grow out of the functioning of a government led by respectful leaders who understand the importance of their role as public servants and stewards. We have strayed so far from those principles, that we may not recover in more than a generation. And there still remain many months during which more damage can be done. The first step toward recovery must be an unflinching commitment to remove from office those who have disgraced their office and their role as public servant. Whatever their political party affiliation, whatever the level of their office, no quarter and no excuse must be given.
That commitment must not be trivialized by "investigations" into transgressions like filing a report a few days late, when the required report was actually filed. Public servants are human beings. But if we allow embattled politicians to equate such minor oversights with the selling of ones vote in exchange for a bribe, or deliberately disclosing highly sensitive classified information for the purposes of retaliation against a political foe, or ordering the surveillance and intrusion into domestic communications without following the prescribed procedures to assure due process, then we have lost our moral compass and the experiment that we call Democracy is over.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Bush refuses to watch Gore documentary movie on Global Warming
There is an old saw that defines the difference between ignorance and stupidity. "Ignorance is an accidental condition that can be cured by acquiring the necessary information and knowledge. Stupidity is a chronic and voluntary condition based upon a choice to remain ignorant."
That adage is borne out by the public statement by Bush that he will refuse to watch the documentary by Al Gore that is reputed to be one of the most thoughtful, balanced and educational films available on the current scientific analysis of global warming. The curt response from the White house suggests that Bush already knows as much as he needs to know about global warming. He rejected the Tokyo Protocol and has supported legislation to weaken restrictions on air pollution and other initiatives that might help alleviate greenhouse emission contributions to the impending global warming crisis.
Of course, the response by Bush is not unexpected. His character in office has been to make a decision and then cobble together the "facts" and group of sycophants that tend to support his prejudgment, then refuse to listen to anyone or anything that disagrees with his decision. His argument for "staying the course" in Iraq, despite the reality of a country descended into chaos and civil war during Bush's "strategic mission" to topple Saddam Hussein, is that he made the decision to invade and that therefore it must be the right decision. Any action that suggests that he was wrong, misguided or misinformed is just plain nonsense. No additional information, changed circumstances, evidence of failure or other "discouraging word" is going to change his mind.
Unfortunately, history is replete with stories of many campaigns gone to ruin in the wake of such hard-headed and foolish "leaders." No matter how "epic" the tales, the end result has always been ruin, death and destruction in massive proportions and unnecessary loss of lives. From Nero's Rome to the Charge of the Light Brigade to Custer to the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor to Viet Nam to Iraq, they all bear the same stamp of wasted lives caused by the foolish and willful ignorance of the commander in chief. In each case, the so called "leader" held fast to a delusional reality that was so far detached from the real world that the only possible result was destruction when their folly collided with reality.
In the case of Global Warming, the stakes are not just the victory or loss of a battle or a war, but planetary in scope. Can we afford to be "led" by a commander in chief who prides himself on ignoring factual information that could inform an intelligent decision on policies of such monumental importance to mankind?
That adage is borne out by the public statement by Bush that he will refuse to watch the documentary by Al Gore that is reputed to be one of the most thoughtful, balanced and educational films available on the current scientific analysis of global warming. The curt response from the White house suggests that Bush already knows as much as he needs to know about global warming. He rejected the Tokyo Protocol and has supported legislation to weaken restrictions on air pollution and other initiatives that might help alleviate greenhouse emission contributions to the impending global warming crisis.
Of course, the response by Bush is not unexpected. His character in office has been to make a decision and then cobble together the "facts" and group of sycophants that tend to support his prejudgment, then refuse to listen to anyone or anything that disagrees with his decision. His argument for "staying the course" in Iraq, despite the reality of a country descended into chaos and civil war during Bush's "strategic mission" to topple Saddam Hussein, is that he made the decision to invade and that therefore it must be the right decision. Any action that suggests that he was wrong, misguided or misinformed is just plain nonsense. No additional information, changed circumstances, evidence of failure or other "discouraging word" is going to change his mind.
Unfortunately, history is replete with stories of many campaigns gone to ruin in the wake of such hard-headed and foolish "leaders." No matter how "epic" the tales, the end result has always been ruin, death and destruction in massive proportions and unnecessary loss of lives. From Nero's Rome to the Charge of the Light Brigade to Custer to the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor to Viet Nam to Iraq, they all bear the same stamp of wasted lives caused by the foolish and willful ignorance of the commander in chief. In each case, the so called "leader" held fast to a delusional reality that was so far detached from the real world that the only possible result was destruction when their folly collided with reality.
In the case of Global Warming, the stakes are not just the victory or loss of a battle or a war, but planetary in scope. Can we afford to be "led" by a commander in chief who prides himself on ignoring factual information that could inform an intelligent decision on policies of such monumental importance to mankind?
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Hayden: Concerns about CIA and spying a "political football"
The confirmation hearings for General Hayden are not deserving of extended commentary. Hayden, a Military careerist, tells the US senators that issues such as kidnapping and torture of detainees without any semblance of due process, and the spying and intrusion on millions of innocent US civilians without any attempt to establish probable cause or obtain statutorily and Constitutionally mandated court supervision are part of a "political game of football." It is hard to imagine what aspect of the US Constitution that Hayden understands and respects enough to "protect and defend" as he must swear to do if confirmed. Aside from his conflicting allegiance and subservience to the Defense Department, Hayden is simply not the right man for so important a job.
However, it shows a lack of courage on the part of Congress to relegate the examination of a program that involves a major breach of the Constitution and statutes through the device of a confirmation hearing. Surely an issue as important as the fundament of our democracy deserves separate and thorough examination in its own right. It should not be muddled with the question of Hayden's fitness for the post as CIA director. If he is confirmed, does that mean that the Congress approves of the domestic spying program? Will Karl Rove and the White House claim that the issue is "old news" after the hearings in an attempt to avoid any further scrutiny?
However, it shows a lack of courage on the part of Congress to relegate the examination of a program that involves a major breach of the Constitution and statutes through the device of a confirmation hearing. Surely an issue as important as the fundament of our democracy deserves separate and thorough examination in its own right. It should not be muddled with the question of Hayden's fitness for the post as CIA director. If he is confirmed, does that mean that the Congress approves of the domestic spying program? Will Karl Rove and the White House claim that the issue is "old news" after the hearings in an attempt to avoid any further scrutiny?
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Currency Devaluation - What are Words Worth to B96?
The developments over the past five years have raised, in my mind at least, a serious question of the declining value of "integrity" and "commitment." High minded philosophers would speak of fidelity to principles and of honor. But on the street, it simply comes down to how good is your "word?" In the case of B-96, the FM station in the Twin Cities now owned and operated by the publicly traded media conglomerate Radio One, the value of that "word" is virtually worthless. Five years ago, Kandu Communications teamed with Ross Love, Chairman & CEO of Blue Chip Communications to acquire a full power commercial FM station, the first to be owned by people of color in the State of Minnesota. Ross Love publicly promised to establish and build a strong relationship between the new station and the African American and other communities of color in the Twin Cities. He promised a substantial contribution to the Urban League and a dialogue with school and community leaders to address concerns, failures and successes of the communities that were underserved by the mainstream white owned and controlled media. To be sure, every promise cannot be kept. But commitment and integrity is demonstrated by at least good faith attempts to honor a promise freely given.
Ross Love went on to sell the 15+ radio stations of Blue Chip to Radio One, a publicly traded communications corporation headed by Black Media leader Katherine Hughes. He sits on the Board of Directors of Radio One. When B-96 was set up, Love chose Steve Woodbury to run the station. Woodbury, a white radio professional manager, had experience with sports and talk radio stations, but no discernible experience whatsoever with a music based station that was connected to a community of color. Kandu Communication principals raised concerns to Love at the time, which he acknowledged as a "potential problem." The role of Kandu Communications, after the acquisition was primarily to advise and assist the station management in developing and strengthening a relationship with the communities whose support had allowed the station to be acquired in the first place.
In the intervening five years, the track record of B-96 and Radio One has been dismal with respect to any relationship with the Black Communities of the Twin Cities. Kandu Communications principals were brushed aside and ignored. Indeed, Woodbury refused to even meet with them to discuss concerns. In five years, Woodbury has never once met with Al MacFarlane, the Publisher and Editor of Insight and a public leader in the Black community for decades. The same holds true for the radio station's relationship with the Spokesman/Recorder, the other respected newspaper organization of the Black community in the Twin Cities. Ross Love publicly promised active collaboration with KMOJ, the non-profit community radio station which represented the sole voice of the community on the airwaves prior to B-96, but whose broadcast range does not cover the Twin Cities area because of its limited power. None of that collaboration has materialized.
Were the words of honor and the promises and commitments by Ross Love regarding the ownership and operation of the new B-96 station of any real value? Ross Love, a former Proctor & Gamble Executive may have simply been selling the Twin Cities communities of color more "soap." Of course, there is always a risk with the change of ownership that a dilution of power and diminished ability to deliver on a promise can occur. In that case, it would have been reasonable for Love to have communicated to Kandu Communications and the Twin Cities communities that he tried but was unable to gain Radio One's approval of the commitments he had made when Blue Chip acquired the station. But despite numerous communications with Love, he never once suggested that he had made the effort and failed. In fact, Love has not confirmed that he communicated to the Radio One Senior Management that he had made public promises and representations when B-96 was acquired.
One need only listen to the station these days to assess the level of B-96's fidelity to the declared "principles" of barring profanity and gratuitous degradation of women and youth in the Black Community. Just because the record companies promote such destructive messages in "hit records" they push to the radio stations does not mean that Program Directors of principle need to broadcast them. We all know about sewage too, but that does not oblige us to pump it into our livingrooms. And we are not talking about censorship, but rather civic responsibility. We all know about the existence of profanity, prostitution, gratuitous violence and the destruction of young Black men and women in our communities. But we each make a choice in how we discuss those realities. Do we glorify them? Or do we discuss them in a rational perspective that educates as well as entertains the audience? It is not a question of genre, as there is Rap and Hip Hop music with a message. What is involved is an intelligent, creative, disciplined and principled Program Director. The stated vision of B-96 was to adhere to the latter positive image. But 20 minutes of listening to the B-96 current playlist demonstrates how far the actual practice has strayed from the promise. I listen to B-96 periodically for professional reasons. My teenage children, who looked forward to the station with anticipation when it was acquired, no longer even put the station on their preset station roster in their cars. No, it is not the demographics, it is the content and character of the broadcast that keep the station from rising in the Arbitron ratings.
Kandu Communications has continued to monitor B-96, sometimes with solemn regret that the project that took ten years to bring to fruition has strayed so far from the initial goals. Yet there is a station, and there is at least a chance that Radio One will hear the message from the Twin Cities communities of color and re-evaluate its course. To that end, Kandu Communications continues the struggle of honoring its commitment to bring a responsible and responsive broadcast media voice to the communities of color in the Twin Cities.
Ross Love went on to sell the 15+ radio stations of Blue Chip to Radio One, a publicly traded communications corporation headed by Black Media leader Katherine Hughes. He sits on the Board of Directors of Radio One. When B-96 was set up, Love chose Steve Woodbury to run the station. Woodbury, a white radio professional manager, had experience with sports and talk radio stations, but no discernible experience whatsoever with a music based station that was connected to a community of color. Kandu Communication principals raised concerns to Love at the time, which he acknowledged as a "potential problem." The role of Kandu Communications, after the acquisition was primarily to advise and assist the station management in developing and strengthening a relationship with the communities whose support had allowed the station to be acquired in the first place.
In the intervening five years, the track record of B-96 and Radio One has been dismal with respect to any relationship with the Black Communities of the Twin Cities. Kandu Communications principals were brushed aside and ignored. Indeed, Woodbury refused to even meet with them to discuss concerns. In five years, Woodbury has never once met with Al MacFarlane, the Publisher and Editor of Insight and a public leader in the Black community for decades. The same holds true for the radio station's relationship with the Spokesman/Recorder, the other respected newspaper organization of the Black community in the Twin Cities. Ross Love publicly promised active collaboration with KMOJ, the non-profit community radio station which represented the sole voice of the community on the airwaves prior to B-96, but whose broadcast range does not cover the Twin Cities area because of its limited power. None of that collaboration has materialized.
Were the words of honor and the promises and commitments by Ross Love regarding the ownership and operation of the new B-96 station of any real value? Ross Love, a former Proctor & Gamble Executive may have simply been selling the Twin Cities communities of color more "soap." Of course, there is always a risk with the change of ownership that a dilution of power and diminished ability to deliver on a promise can occur. In that case, it would have been reasonable for Love to have communicated to Kandu Communications and the Twin Cities communities that he tried but was unable to gain Radio One's approval of the commitments he had made when Blue Chip acquired the station. But despite numerous communications with Love, he never once suggested that he had made the effort and failed. In fact, Love has not confirmed that he communicated to the Radio One Senior Management that he had made public promises and representations when B-96 was acquired.
One need only listen to the station these days to assess the level of B-96's fidelity to the declared "principles" of barring profanity and gratuitous degradation of women and youth in the Black Community. Just because the record companies promote such destructive messages in "hit records" they push to the radio stations does not mean that Program Directors of principle need to broadcast them. We all know about sewage too, but that does not oblige us to pump it into our livingrooms. And we are not talking about censorship, but rather civic responsibility. We all know about the existence of profanity, prostitution, gratuitous violence and the destruction of young Black men and women in our communities. But we each make a choice in how we discuss those realities. Do we glorify them? Or do we discuss them in a rational perspective that educates as well as entertains the audience? It is not a question of genre, as there is Rap and Hip Hop music with a message. What is involved is an intelligent, creative, disciplined and principled Program Director. The stated vision of B-96 was to adhere to the latter positive image. But 20 minutes of listening to the B-96 current playlist demonstrates how far the actual practice has strayed from the promise. I listen to B-96 periodically for professional reasons. My teenage children, who looked forward to the station with anticipation when it was acquired, no longer even put the station on their preset station roster in their cars. No, it is not the demographics, it is the content and character of the broadcast that keep the station from rising in the Arbitron ratings.
Kandu Communications has continued to monitor B-96, sometimes with solemn regret that the project that took ten years to bring to fruition has strayed so far from the initial goals. Yet there is a station, and there is at least a chance that Radio One will hear the message from the Twin Cities communities of color and re-evaluate its course. To that end, Kandu Communications continues the struggle of honoring its commitment to bring a responsible and responsive broadcast media voice to the communities of color in the Twin Cities.
Chavez Chides Bush Administration Arms Embargo
In the "war of words" between Hugo Chavez and George W. Bush, or more accurately the Bush Administration, the exchanges have taken on a decided flavor of a playground squabble. Chavez is both volatile and prone to provocative statements. As often as not, his remarks contain far more than simply a grain of truth and wit. Two things resonate from his remarks, however, that highlight the incompetence of the Bush Administration. The first is that Chavez is responding to provocation from the US. The second is that his remarks demonstrate a nearly complete loss of moral authority and respect that the US once held in the international community.
The US can attempt to impose an “arms embargo” upon Venezuela. There is no credible evidence that Venezuela is attempting to purchase or amass any extraordinary cache of arms. In light of its track record over the past few years, it is as likely as not that any such “evidence” advanced by the Bush Administration would be fabricated or based upon dubious information sources. There are probably more arms and munitions brought into New York City, Philadelphia and Boston each month than are being acquired by Chavez. Moreover, Chavez has no need to acquire weapons from US manufacturers, as there clearly is a global market for such goods. In the past, French and Israeli arms manufacturers have been more than willing to step into the void left by such US embargoes.
Yet the Bush Administration apparently sees some political advantage in demonizing and attacking Chavez. Truth be told, there is far more evidence of corruption, disregard of human rights, interference with free speech and democratic principles and imperialist behavior on the part of the Bush Administration than has been evidenced by Chavez. Chavez is no choirboy, but he is the duly and democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation. No claims here to being a professional psychologist, but could it be that the allegations against Chavez are merely projecting upon Chavez the types of improper behavior of the accusers, and an attempt to deflect attention from the true source of the problem?
Another interesting development is that more recent comments by Chavez are marked more by mockery than by aggression. They are simply derisive and sometimes sarcastic. He responds publicly to actions by the Bush Administration that represent attacks upon Chavez and his government. In other words, Chavez seems to regard the US without any great fear and without much respect. He has also learned that a majority of US citizens do not approve of the Bush Administration handling of US foreign policy. Thus Chavez carefully directs his comments to the US government and not the US people generally. To the contrary, he has taken steps to lessen the harsh burden of prices for heating oil in New England families, just as he has used oil for diplomatic and humanitarian purposes in the Caribbean and in other South American countries.
The Bush Administration seems to hold as a key tenet of its "foreign policy" the subversion of existing regimes with which it cannot seem to get along diplomatically, which seems to be virtually every foreign government that stands up to Bush Administration attempts to bully and intimidate. The apparent belief that Bush could curry significant support among the Venezuelan people is not only mistaken, it is foolish. Whatever dissatisfaction there may be with Chavez and his government is clearly overborne by the sense of outrage and anger against the Bush Administration.
As my Grandpa used to tell me: "if you wish to be respected, you must first act respectably, treat others with respect and thereby earn respect. You cannot demand and expect to receive genuine respect by using your fists or a gun." My Grandpa barely had a high school education, but I believe that he was smarter and more learned than the President of the United States. I would no longer wish to be or wish my children to be President, but I certainly would want them to emulate my Grandpa. He was a man to be respected and admired, rather than one to be subjected to justifiable public ridicule.
The US can attempt to impose an “arms embargo” upon Venezuela. There is no credible evidence that Venezuela is attempting to purchase or amass any extraordinary cache of arms. In light of its track record over the past few years, it is as likely as not that any such “evidence” advanced by the Bush Administration would be fabricated or based upon dubious information sources. There are probably more arms and munitions brought into New York City, Philadelphia and Boston each month than are being acquired by Chavez. Moreover, Chavez has no need to acquire weapons from US manufacturers, as there clearly is a global market for such goods. In the past, French and Israeli arms manufacturers have been more than willing to step into the void left by such US embargoes.
Yet the Bush Administration apparently sees some political advantage in demonizing and attacking Chavez. Truth be told, there is far more evidence of corruption, disregard of human rights, interference with free speech and democratic principles and imperialist behavior on the part of the Bush Administration than has been evidenced by Chavez. Chavez is no choirboy, but he is the duly and democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation. No claims here to being a professional psychologist, but could it be that the allegations against Chavez are merely projecting upon Chavez the types of improper behavior of the accusers, and an attempt to deflect attention from the true source of the problem?
Another interesting development is that more recent comments by Chavez are marked more by mockery than by aggression. They are simply derisive and sometimes sarcastic. He responds publicly to actions by the Bush Administration that represent attacks upon Chavez and his government. In other words, Chavez seems to regard the US without any great fear and without much respect. He has also learned that a majority of US citizens do not approve of the Bush Administration handling of US foreign policy. Thus Chavez carefully directs his comments to the US government and not the US people generally. To the contrary, he has taken steps to lessen the harsh burden of prices for heating oil in New England families, just as he has used oil for diplomatic and humanitarian purposes in the Caribbean and in other South American countries.
The Bush Administration seems to hold as a key tenet of its "foreign policy" the subversion of existing regimes with which it cannot seem to get along diplomatically, which seems to be virtually every foreign government that stands up to Bush Administration attempts to bully and intimidate. The apparent belief that Bush could curry significant support among the Venezuelan people is not only mistaken, it is foolish. Whatever dissatisfaction there may be with Chavez and his government is clearly overborne by the sense of outrage and anger against the Bush Administration.
As my Grandpa used to tell me: "if you wish to be respected, you must first act respectably, treat others with respect and thereby earn respect. You cannot demand and expect to receive genuine respect by using your fists or a gun." My Grandpa barely had a high school education, but I believe that he was smarter and more learned than the President of the United States. I would no longer wish to be or wish my children to be President, but I certainly would want them to emulate my Grandpa. He was a man to be respected and admired, rather than one to be subjected to justifiable public ridicule.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
US Gains Support Against Iran - another "Coalition of the Duped?"
The drumbeat continues as US emissaries continue to trot the globe in search of an excuse to take military action or further escalate the tensions betweeen the US and Iran. There is no real mystery about the Iran "controversy" in the minds of most mentally and emotionally balanced people. Apart from some notion of Islamaphobia and a financial motive to prop up oil prices, there is no coherent rationale, sane or otherwise, for actually pursuing any course other than diplomacy toward the Iran "nuclear" issue.
Let's be clear for a moment. Iran is in the process of developing technology to enrich uranium. At present, it will take years before they have the actual capacity to enrich enough uranium for use as fuel for electricity generating facilities. That is a peaceful purpose that no entity, no country and not even the United Nations should attempt to deny the Iranian people. The idea that some sort of sanctions must now be imposed because the Iranian leadership may "desire" to develop capacity to enrich uranium sufficient for weapons capability a decade in the future is absurd. No inspector, diplomat or expert has indicated any credible evidence that there is any near term threat or even the possibility of a threat to US or international interests from Iran having nuclear weapons capability.
What we have is a lot of baiting and bellicose rhetoric being tossed out in public. The Arabic and Islamic culture is imbued with the notion of maintaining "face" in a manner not unlike traditional Japanese culture. So when George Bush goes public with the needless provocation that "the US will not allow" Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability, it is not unexpected that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard line Iranian President, would publicly counter that the US has no right to tell Iran what the Iranian government can or cannot do. What we really have is a couple of slow witted and loud mouthed leaders arguing and baiting each other in public. The US is, at the same time, attempting to place pressure on other countries to "choose up sides" for a battle that need never happen.
Yesterday, the price of crude oil went above $70 a barrel heading toward $80. Reports state that current petroleum supplies are the highest they have been in eight years and yet the price of gasoline heads north of $3 per gallon. What is the reason for the price boost? We are told it is the political instability in the Mideast, and particularly with regard to the Iran "crisis." If I were an investor, or owed a lot of favors to oil companies, I would encourage the President to continue just what he is doing. Keep escalating and hyping an illusory "crisis" so that the oil companies can rake in ungodly profits while everyone's attention is focused on fear of another "war" that the US must preemptively invoke to "protect Americans from terrorism."
The flaw in this whole scenario is amply demonstrated by the Iraqi fiasco. When Bush plays Global War games to suit his ego and family financial interests, the consequences are not as predictable as anyone would like. And the real life consequences in Iraq involve thousands of American soldiers killed, tens of thousands maimed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, maimed or displaced as a result of Bush's incompetent and miscalculated strategy. We have to believe that Bush never understood the gravity of his actions or the stupidity of his policies when he publicly baited the Iraqi insurgency to "bring it on" after he had declared the Iraqi mission "accomplished" following the Shock & Awe invasion. To assume that he knew and understood what he was doing would mean that he is one of the most cruel, evil and murderous leaders that modern history has ever known.
Bush and Ahmadinejad are playing with a fire that neither of them has the ability to control. They are both spoiling for a fight that need not happen. If the US stops the bellicose rhetoric about "keeping military options on the table" and simply goes about a rational diplomatic strategy, the reactionary rhetoric from Iran will subside. But if Bush continues on the same course of provocation and threats [actual and implied] he currently is on, the Iranian leadership will believe that they have no choice except to respond in kind. Turn your rational mind to North Korea. The rhetoric is nowhere near as volatile, yet we know that the country has limited nuclear capability greater than Iran. still we are not experiencing the same brinksmanship with regard to relations with the North Korean government.
Consider that some of the same defensive logic applies. North Korea claimed that it needed to develop a nuclear deterrent because of the hostile and threatening posture and rhetoric coming from Washington. With the US announcing "contingency planning" for tactical nuclear strikes against Iran, does anyone doubt the rationale for the Iranian Government to claim that it maintains the right to take any measures it sees fit to defend itself from hostile foreign threats of attack on its sovereignty?
Let us hope that some measure of sanity will prevail. If the matter remains in the United Nations, there is at least modest reason for optimism. Hopefully, no country would be as unintelligent and misguided as Great Britain was regarding Iraq, and agree to join the US in any unilateral invasion of Iran. The predictions of Nostradamus aside, I have no great desire to see the next World War [predicted to begin in the Middle East] start up this year or the next. If things can hold off long enough to get some indiscriminate testosterone and bellicosity out of the White House, our children may yet have a future.
Let's be clear for a moment. Iran is in the process of developing technology to enrich uranium. At present, it will take years before they have the actual capacity to enrich enough uranium for use as fuel for electricity generating facilities. That is a peaceful purpose that no entity, no country and not even the United Nations should attempt to deny the Iranian people. The idea that some sort of sanctions must now be imposed because the Iranian leadership may "desire" to develop capacity to enrich uranium sufficient for weapons capability a decade in the future is absurd. No inspector, diplomat or expert has indicated any credible evidence that there is any near term threat or even the possibility of a threat to US or international interests from Iran having nuclear weapons capability.
What we have is a lot of baiting and bellicose rhetoric being tossed out in public. The Arabic and Islamic culture is imbued with the notion of maintaining "face" in a manner not unlike traditional Japanese culture. So when George Bush goes public with the needless provocation that "the US will not allow" Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability, it is not unexpected that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard line Iranian President, would publicly counter that the US has no right to tell Iran what the Iranian government can or cannot do. What we really have is a couple of slow witted and loud mouthed leaders arguing and baiting each other in public. The US is, at the same time, attempting to place pressure on other countries to "choose up sides" for a battle that need never happen.
Yesterday, the price of crude oil went above $70 a barrel heading toward $80. Reports state that current petroleum supplies are the highest they have been in eight years and yet the price of gasoline heads north of $3 per gallon. What is the reason for the price boost? We are told it is the political instability in the Mideast, and particularly with regard to the Iran "crisis." If I were an investor, or owed a lot of favors to oil companies, I would encourage the President to continue just what he is doing. Keep escalating and hyping an illusory "crisis" so that the oil companies can rake in ungodly profits while everyone's attention is focused on fear of another "war" that the US must preemptively invoke to "protect Americans from terrorism."
The flaw in this whole scenario is amply demonstrated by the Iraqi fiasco. When Bush plays Global War games to suit his ego and family financial interests, the consequences are not as predictable as anyone would like. And the real life consequences in Iraq involve thousands of American soldiers killed, tens of thousands maimed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, maimed or displaced as a result of Bush's incompetent and miscalculated strategy. We have to believe that Bush never understood the gravity of his actions or the stupidity of his policies when he publicly baited the Iraqi insurgency to "bring it on" after he had declared the Iraqi mission "accomplished" following the Shock & Awe invasion. To assume that he knew and understood what he was doing would mean that he is one of the most cruel, evil and murderous leaders that modern history has ever known.
Bush and Ahmadinejad are playing with a fire that neither of them has the ability to control. They are both spoiling for a fight that need not happen. If the US stops the bellicose rhetoric about "keeping military options on the table" and simply goes about a rational diplomatic strategy, the reactionary rhetoric from Iran will subside. But if Bush continues on the same course of provocation and threats [actual and implied] he currently is on, the Iranian leadership will believe that they have no choice except to respond in kind. Turn your rational mind to North Korea. The rhetoric is nowhere near as volatile, yet we know that the country has limited nuclear capability greater than Iran. still we are not experiencing the same brinksmanship with regard to relations with the North Korean government.
Consider that some of the same defensive logic applies. North Korea claimed that it needed to develop a nuclear deterrent because of the hostile and threatening posture and rhetoric coming from Washington. With the US announcing "contingency planning" for tactical nuclear strikes against Iran, does anyone doubt the rationale for the Iranian Government to claim that it maintains the right to take any measures it sees fit to defend itself from hostile foreign threats of attack on its sovereignty?
Let us hope that some measure of sanity will prevail. If the matter remains in the United Nations, there is at least modest reason for optimism. Hopefully, no country would be as unintelligent and misguided as Great Britain was regarding Iraq, and agree to join the US in any unilateral invasion of Iran. The predictions of Nostradamus aside, I have no great desire to see the next World War [predicted to begin in the Middle East] start up this year or the next. If things can hold off long enough to get some indiscriminate testosterone and bellicosity out of the White House, our children may yet have a future.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The Bush Administration's "Classified" Shell Game
With every passing day, more and more "classified" evidence comes to light that suggests and reaffirms that the Bush Administration held a predetermined strategy to invade Iraq, to manipulate or fabricate evidence to justify that strategy and to attack the credibility and punish anyone who went public with criticism of the President’s strategy. Much time can be wasted arguing over who specifically initiated or approved specific acts. That effort involves microscopic examination of the trees while the forest looms large before us. Stepping back and applying simple logic leads to the conclusion that, regardless of which player assumed what specific role, the entire team and its leadership were responsible for what took place. These circumstances involve leading a country to a military invasion that has cost thousands of American soldiers their lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians their lives and sucked billions of dollars from the US economic resources. This situation above all others calls for application of the Principle that “the buck stops here” at the Oval Office. The President is responsible for knowing what his administration was doing, and must be held accountable even if he lacked actual knowledge of all the specifics.
Many news reports have detailed the Fitzgerald court filing in which the revelation that Bush authorized the selective leak of “classified” information to journalists to undermine and punish former ambassador Joe Wilson for debunking the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing yellow cake uranium from Niger.
New reports reveal that a team of highly qualified specialists were dispatched to Iraq to examine the mobile trailers alleged to be “mobile biological weapons laboratories” by Bush administration operatives. The report filed and forwarded to Washington on May 27, 2003 stated unequivocally that the trailers were not related to anything biological and certainly were not bioweapons manufacturing facilities. A Washington Post investigative report disclosed the following:
The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.
"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers.
Two days later, the President, who was under intense pressure from critics of the administration’s failure to discover any WMD’s as a result of the invasion of Iraq, went public with the following announcement:
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
There will undoubtedly be a rash of finger pointing and exculpatory posturing about who had what information when. The report was classified and most likely sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency that dispatched the investigative team. The White House can be expected to take the “plausible deniability” approach and say that they had not read the report prior to the President’s public proclamation. But again we return to the trees and forest analogy. It was incumbent upon the President and his staff to know that an investigation of the mobile trailers was undertaken, particularly if those facilities were intended as justification for taking the nation into non-defensive military conflict. Further, it was not only logical but imperative that the administration check on the status of that investigation prior to making a public statement that those facilities were biological weapons labs. Instead, as the Washington Post reported:
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.
We have heard evidence in the “Downing Street Memos” of the President’s assertion that he intended to go forward with the invasion, regardless of whether the UN Resolution supporting the attack was passed. The British Government senior officials were told that “the facts were being fixed around the policy.” Now two clear incidents of shelved or concealed critical reports directly contradicting the administration’s policy have come to light.
Former chief of counterintelligence Clark detailed how the administration used intimidation and political maneuvering to get the answers that it wanted from subordinates. When Clark reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, the President ordered him repeatedly to go back and “take another look” implicitly telling Clark that he had given the wrong answer. Under this environment, it makes little difference whether the DIA report on the mobile trailers was ignored by the White House or diverted by the head of the DIA. The administration had made clear that it did not want to hear any evidence that its policy of invading Iraq was wrong. Given the intense battle that ensued after claims of faulty intelligence by the agencies vs. manipulated intelligence by the White House, it is more probable that the DIA forwarded the classified report to the White House. From that point, it is irrelevant who within the administration showed it to the President or concealed it from him while encouraging the President to make a blatantly false and misleading public pronouncement.
The administration continues to play the “classified” information shell game. The National Intelligence Estimate information leaked by Libby was, we are now told, secretly declassified by the President. Yet his administration continued for months to maintain publicly that the information was classified and that whoever leaked it would be caught and fired. The Washing Post reports: “Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency both declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified.”
The President has repeatedly stated that what he is doing and will do is what the American people want. The public has repeatedly spoken in poll after poll indicating that the President should be held accountable and possibly impeached if evidence showed that he misled the country into war in Iraq. At the very least, it is time for the President to come clean and disclose the evidence that was available and the information he relied upon to make the determination to use “preemptive war” as a strategy and policy of the United States. There is no legitimacy to the argument that declassification of such information at this point aids the “enemy.” Publication of the reports is historical and has no current strategic value to the Iraqi insurgency. The only “enemy” that could possibly be aided by release of the information is the American people. If that is how this administration perceives us, then it is time to deal with the problem and resolve it.
Many news reports have detailed the Fitzgerald court filing in which the revelation that Bush authorized the selective leak of “classified” information to journalists to undermine and punish former ambassador Joe Wilson for debunking the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing yellow cake uranium from Niger.
New reports reveal that a team of highly qualified specialists were dispatched to Iraq to examine the mobile trailers alleged to be “mobile biological weapons laboratories” by Bush administration operatives. The report filed and forwarded to Washington on May 27, 2003 stated unequivocally that the trailers were not related to anything biological and certainly were not bioweapons manufacturing facilities. A Washington Post investigative report disclosed the following:
The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.
"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers.
Two days later, the President, who was under intense pressure from critics of the administration’s failure to discover any WMD’s as a result of the invasion of Iraq, went public with the following announcement:
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
There will undoubtedly be a rash of finger pointing and exculpatory posturing about who had what information when. The report was classified and most likely sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency that dispatched the investigative team. The White House can be expected to take the “plausible deniability” approach and say that they had not read the report prior to the President’s public proclamation. But again we return to the trees and forest analogy. It was incumbent upon the President and his staff to know that an investigation of the mobile trailers was undertaken, particularly if those facilities were intended as justification for taking the nation into non-defensive military conflict. Further, it was not only logical but imperative that the administration check on the status of that investigation prior to making a public statement that those facilities were biological weapons labs. Instead, as the Washington Post reported:
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.
We have heard evidence in the “Downing Street Memos” of the President’s assertion that he intended to go forward with the invasion, regardless of whether the UN Resolution supporting the attack was passed. The British Government senior officials were told that “the facts were being fixed around the policy.” Now two clear incidents of shelved or concealed critical reports directly contradicting the administration’s policy have come to light.
Former chief of counterintelligence Clark detailed how the administration used intimidation and political maneuvering to get the answers that it wanted from subordinates. When Clark reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, the President ordered him repeatedly to go back and “take another look” implicitly telling Clark that he had given the wrong answer. Under this environment, it makes little difference whether the DIA report on the mobile trailers was ignored by the White House or diverted by the head of the DIA. The administration had made clear that it did not want to hear any evidence that its policy of invading Iraq was wrong. Given the intense battle that ensued after claims of faulty intelligence by the agencies vs. manipulated intelligence by the White House, it is more probable that the DIA forwarded the classified report to the White House. From that point, it is irrelevant who within the administration showed it to the President or concealed it from him while encouraging the President to make a blatantly false and misleading public pronouncement.
The administration continues to play the “classified” information shell game. The National Intelligence Estimate information leaked by Libby was, we are now told, secretly declassified by the President. Yet his administration continued for months to maintain publicly that the information was classified and that whoever leaked it would be caught and fired. The Washing Post reports: “Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency both declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified.”
The President has repeatedly stated that what he is doing and will do is what the American people want. The public has repeatedly spoken in poll after poll indicating that the President should be held accountable and possibly impeached if evidence showed that he misled the country into war in Iraq. At the very least, it is time for the President to come clean and disclose the evidence that was available and the information he relied upon to make the determination to use “preemptive war” as a strategy and policy of the United States. There is no legitimacy to the argument that declassification of such information at this point aids the “enemy.” Publication of the reports is historical and has no current strategic value to the Iraqi insurgency. The only “enemy” that could possibly be aided by release of the information is the American people. If that is how this administration perceives us, then it is time to deal with the problem and resolve it.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Nanotechnology & Worker Safety: Under the Radar?
Many science experts have been predicting for years that nanotechnology is the next industrial revolution that we face. Estimates say that by 2014 there will be more than 2 Trillion dollars worth of goods manufactured and sold that incorporate nanotechnology. THis would be more than 200 times the 2004 reported level. Minute yet complex particles are made up of objects that are no larger than tubes or spheres a few atoms in length or diameter. These particles can be used for a variety of helpful functions, like transporting electricity through previously resistant materials or transporting drugs to particular damaged or infected cells. They also can be used for seemingly pedestrian purposes like helping cloth retain color or fabrics repel water, uses that translate into huge dollars when incorporated into the existing manufacturing processes. Without question, nanotechnology represents a great opportunity to move the partnership between science and manufacturing forward, not unlike cybertechnology propelled the information age into warp speed.
Every “discovery” also brings with it a potential curse, and the same is true of nanotechnology. While the potential benefits of these particles is enormous, the risk to those involved in their production and use may be equally large. Historically, the dangers of chemicals and workplace substances have been discovered as a result of morbidity analysis of exposed workers. The health risk of exposure to asbestos was discovered and understood after shipbuilders because sick and many died from lung disease at alarmingly higher rates than the general public. Hat makers exposed to mercury treated felt, and painters exposed to lead based paint provided information from which the neurotoxicity of those substances was better understood. But the argument could be made that we ought to at least try to move beyond the strategy that coal miners used to test workplace safety. They would put a bird in a cage and take it into the mine. If the bird died, it meant that the air in the shaft was unfit for the workers. Today’s science ought to allow us to treat our workers better than those birds were treated.
The problem is that the science of discovery usually outpaces the attention paid to safety. The theme of mad scientists that runs through movie lore involves scientists who disregard safety to explore the effects of new and unproven chemical substances. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration typically lags behind industry in developing and implementing safety standards for the workplace that protect workers exposed to such chemicals and substances from unreasonable risk. Many businesses concerned almost exclusively with their bottom line profitability have in the past ignored or suppressed concerns about employee safety, treating OSHA as a threat or a nuisance instead of an ally.
That may be changing a bit as we move into the bold future of nanotechnology. The problem is that so little is known about the health impact or risks of nanomaterials. Some nanoparticles exist naturally and we are exposed to them routinely. However, little is known about the specific impact of these naturally occurring elements on human health. Imagine then our lack of knowledge and understanding of the impact and risks associated with artificially produced nanoparticles that are more complex than the natural ones, but still smaller than a virus. When medical science began to understand the virus and the risks associated with viral infections as compared to infection from far larger bacteria, a whole new way of treating diseases emerged. A similar new way of thinking may be required for workplace safety monitoring and risk analysis.
Right now, OSHA and industry lack the equipment in any economically viable and portable form to measure and monitor worker exposure. And to the extent that health impacts may be latent, gradual, cumulative or synergistic, many current workers may be irretrievably compromised from exposure while data is being collected and analyzed. In an age where the technical training and experience of workers in modern manufacturing is more and more important, industry cannot afford to treat its workers as fungible and expendable in the same way that miners were treated in the past. We can only hope that responsible industry representatives will establish partnerships with OSHA, NIH (National Institute of Health) and NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) to speed up the learning curve on what impacts nanomaterial exposure may have on human health.
Every “discovery” also brings with it a potential curse, and the same is true of nanotechnology. While the potential benefits of these particles is enormous, the risk to those involved in their production and use may be equally large. Historically, the dangers of chemicals and workplace substances have been discovered as a result of morbidity analysis of exposed workers. The health risk of exposure to asbestos was discovered and understood after shipbuilders because sick and many died from lung disease at alarmingly higher rates than the general public. Hat makers exposed to mercury treated felt, and painters exposed to lead based paint provided information from which the neurotoxicity of those substances was better understood. But the argument could be made that we ought to at least try to move beyond the strategy that coal miners used to test workplace safety. They would put a bird in a cage and take it into the mine. If the bird died, it meant that the air in the shaft was unfit for the workers. Today’s science ought to allow us to treat our workers better than those birds were treated.
The problem is that the science of discovery usually outpaces the attention paid to safety. The theme of mad scientists that runs through movie lore involves scientists who disregard safety to explore the effects of new and unproven chemical substances. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration typically lags behind industry in developing and implementing safety standards for the workplace that protect workers exposed to such chemicals and substances from unreasonable risk. Many businesses concerned almost exclusively with their bottom line profitability have in the past ignored or suppressed concerns about employee safety, treating OSHA as a threat or a nuisance instead of an ally.
That may be changing a bit as we move into the bold future of nanotechnology. The problem is that so little is known about the health impact or risks of nanomaterials. Some nanoparticles exist naturally and we are exposed to them routinely. However, little is known about the specific impact of these naturally occurring elements on human health. Imagine then our lack of knowledge and understanding of the impact and risks associated with artificially produced nanoparticles that are more complex than the natural ones, but still smaller than a virus. When medical science began to understand the virus and the risks associated with viral infections as compared to infection from far larger bacteria, a whole new way of treating diseases emerged. A similar new way of thinking may be required for workplace safety monitoring and risk analysis.
Right now, OSHA and industry lack the equipment in any economically viable and portable form to measure and monitor worker exposure. And to the extent that health impacts may be latent, gradual, cumulative or synergistic, many current workers may be irretrievably compromised from exposure while data is being collected and analyzed. In an age where the technical training and experience of workers in modern manufacturing is more and more important, industry cannot afford to treat its workers as fungible and expendable in the same way that miners were treated in the past. We can only hope that responsible industry representatives will establish partnerships with OSHA, NIH (National Institute of Health) and NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) to speed up the learning curve on what impacts nanomaterial exposure may have on human health.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Immigration Reform Compromise: "We hardly knew ye"
The Senate compromise measure on Immigration reform now appears doomed, as does immigration reform legislation for this year, after a key vote to block the myriad of amendments seeking to undermine the compromise measure attracted only 38 of the 60 votes needed. As expected, there is a great deal of finger pointing going on currently. In these situations, it is more helpful to examine what the politicians did and are doing, rather than listen to what they say publicly. The GOP accuses the Democrats of not wanting the bill to go forward.
“It’s not gone forward because there’s a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
However, the actual vote on the critical procedural step blocking amendments went along party lines. Democrats voted in favor and GOP members of the Senate voted against. Rhetoric aside, had the GOP majority truly wanted the compromise measure to go forward in the form agreed, it is quite clear that it would have done so. They hold the majority and there were more than enough Democrats supporting the procedural motion to block amendments to make up the 60 votes needed. The more probable explanation is that the GOP leadership obtained the agreement of its members with the promise that they would be able to weaken and undermine the compromise measure through amendments prior to passage. Alternatively, GOP Senators fraudulently indicated their support for the compromise while al the while intending to undermine the compromise with amendments. Perhaps if Bill Frist had the clout that Tom "the Hammer" Delay previously had in the House, the Senate GOP members would have been intimidated and disciplined to stay in line with the compromise accord. Politically, it would have been better in an election year for the Senate members to pass the compromise measure without amendments and then see it scuttled in the Conference Committee, because the Senate bill differs so much from the House measure.
The tragedy in this whole episode/saga is that a truly serious issue, deserving of serious thought and action, has been trivialized by a "Swift Boat" style jingoistic smear campaign. Provoked in large measure by bigotry and pseudo patriotic attitudes, these critics have labeled any pragmatic attempt to humanely address the very real problem of undocumented aliens who already live in this country [millions of them]. Their "law & order" strategy is to build a large double or triple fence across the US-Mexican border [note that no similar proposal has been put forward for the US -Canadian border] and deport all undocumented aliens immediately. Their talisman phrase is that there must be no "amnesty." Any proposal to legalize the status of these aliens is labeled "amnesty" and is therefore deemed unacceptable. They forget or ignore the fact that this "Law & Order" approach has failed miserably over the past two decades while the problem has worsened.
Whether granting amnesty is necessarily a bad thing could be debated. What they call "amnesty" is, in fact, done daily through prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system, and in granting asylum or making deportation prosecution decisions in the immigration system as well. But the staunch "patriotic" opponents of immigration reform shun civil and reasoned debate. In addition, there is a logical inconsistency in their - "they broke our laws, they must be punished" - approach to the problem. It is a flaw that opponents should be very careful to consider. In the criminal prosecution system, an accused is usually offered leniency for cooperation with authorities in finding and convicting other lawbreakers. Law enforcement usually seeks to gain as much useful information as possible from each case they prosecute. Thus, if the "prosecution" model were used, each undocumented alien could be offered leniency in exchange for identifying the US employer who employed him or her. The government would be obliged to prosecute the employer companies, if for no reason other than efficiency. If you prosecute one alien, you yield results of only one case solved. If you prosecute and convict an employer, the chances are that you will yield multiple convictions and prevent many future violations.
As long as there are employers who are willing to break the law by hiring undocumented aliens, there will be incentives for aliens to enter this country illegally to find such work. Businesses that depend upon cheap labor for their profitability, and in some instances their survival, do not want the borders closed or the workers deported. Nor do these companies want to pay legally required minimum wages for the labor. Their solution is to illegally hire undocumented workers at wages well below the minimum required by law, workers who will never go to the authorities to complain of mistreatment. These companies are an important part of the GOP base, and find themselves in direct conflict with the "law & order" groups that oppose anything they call "amnesty." More fearful of these voting blocs than concerned about finding a practical, humane and feasible solution to the problem, Congressional representatives run for the cover of slogans in an election year.
Democrats have similar pressures, but appear to have been willing to stand by the compromise to which they publicly agreed. There may be some merit to the argument that Democrats would rather see only the GOP House Bill that criminalizes any activities that give aid and suppport, such as shelter, food and medical assistance, to undocumented aliens. That measure is so heinous that it has sparked the protest by hundreds of thousands of latinos and those who support humane treatment of undocumented aliens. It is an embarrasment to Congress and the Nation, and leaving it in the laps of GOP Representatives seeking re-election makes sense. Democrats did not have to make the effort to help the GOP through the Senate compromise. But they did so, and it is simply inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are responsible for the failure of the compromise measure.
As things now stand, the public is left in the lurch with a problem that requires courage and action from Congress.
“It’s not gone forward because there’s a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
However, the actual vote on the critical procedural step blocking amendments went along party lines. Democrats voted in favor and GOP members of the Senate voted against. Rhetoric aside, had the GOP majority truly wanted the compromise measure to go forward in the form agreed, it is quite clear that it would have done so. They hold the majority and there were more than enough Democrats supporting the procedural motion to block amendments to make up the 60 votes needed. The more probable explanation is that the GOP leadership obtained the agreement of its members with the promise that they would be able to weaken and undermine the compromise measure through amendments prior to passage. Alternatively, GOP Senators fraudulently indicated their support for the compromise while al the while intending to undermine the compromise with amendments. Perhaps if Bill Frist had the clout that Tom "the Hammer" Delay previously had in the House, the Senate GOP members would have been intimidated and disciplined to stay in line with the compromise accord. Politically, it would have been better in an election year for the Senate members to pass the compromise measure without amendments and then see it scuttled in the Conference Committee, because the Senate bill differs so much from the House measure.
The tragedy in this whole episode/saga is that a truly serious issue, deserving of serious thought and action, has been trivialized by a "Swift Boat" style jingoistic smear campaign. Provoked in large measure by bigotry and pseudo patriotic attitudes, these critics have labeled any pragmatic attempt to humanely address the very real problem of undocumented aliens who already live in this country [millions of them]. Their "law & order" strategy is to build a large double or triple fence across the US-Mexican border [note that no similar proposal has been put forward for the US -Canadian border] and deport all undocumented aliens immediately. Their talisman phrase is that there must be no "amnesty." Any proposal to legalize the status of these aliens is labeled "amnesty" and is therefore deemed unacceptable. They forget or ignore the fact that this "Law & Order" approach has failed miserably over the past two decades while the problem has worsened.
Whether granting amnesty is necessarily a bad thing could be debated. What they call "amnesty" is, in fact, done daily through prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system, and in granting asylum or making deportation prosecution decisions in the immigration system as well. But the staunch "patriotic" opponents of immigration reform shun civil and reasoned debate. In addition, there is a logical inconsistency in their - "they broke our laws, they must be punished" - approach to the problem. It is a flaw that opponents should be very careful to consider. In the criminal prosecution system, an accused is usually offered leniency for cooperation with authorities in finding and convicting other lawbreakers. Law enforcement usually seeks to gain as much useful information as possible from each case they prosecute. Thus, if the "prosecution" model were used, each undocumented alien could be offered leniency in exchange for identifying the US employer who employed him or her. The government would be obliged to prosecute the employer companies, if for no reason other than efficiency. If you prosecute one alien, you yield results of only one case solved. If you prosecute and convict an employer, the chances are that you will yield multiple convictions and prevent many future violations.
As long as there are employers who are willing to break the law by hiring undocumented aliens, there will be incentives for aliens to enter this country illegally to find such work. Businesses that depend upon cheap labor for their profitability, and in some instances their survival, do not want the borders closed or the workers deported. Nor do these companies want to pay legally required minimum wages for the labor. Their solution is to illegally hire undocumented workers at wages well below the minimum required by law, workers who will never go to the authorities to complain of mistreatment. These companies are an important part of the GOP base, and find themselves in direct conflict with the "law & order" groups that oppose anything they call "amnesty." More fearful of these voting blocs than concerned about finding a practical, humane and feasible solution to the problem, Congressional representatives run for the cover of slogans in an election year.
Democrats have similar pressures, but appear to have been willing to stand by the compromise to which they publicly agreed. There may be some merit to the argument that Democrats would rather see only the GOP House Bill that criminalizes any activities that give aid and suppport, such as shelter, food and medical assistance, to undocumented aliens. That measure is so heinous that it has sparked the protest by hundreds of thousands of latinos and those who support humane treatment of undocumented aliens. It is an embarrasment to Congress and the Nation, and leaving it in the laps of GOP Representatives seeking re-election makes sense. Democrats did not have to make the effort to help the GOP through the Senate compromise. But they did so, and it is simply inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are responsible for the failure of the compromise measure.
As things now stand, the public is left in the lurch with a problem that requires courage and action from Congress.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Scalia and the Gitmo Case: The Judicial Worm Turns?
For those waiting for the next shoe to drop, consider the noise arising from the largely unpublicized speech of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to be a strong indicator of its descent. Speaking to an audience primarily of legal acadamicians in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that detainees who have been labeled "enemy combatants" have any rights under the Geneva Convention or the US Constitution. He did indirectly acknowledge a bias that could influence his judgment by referencing his son who was deployed by the US Army to Iraq. One can understand a somewhat less tolerant attitude toward those who pose a direct threat to a loved one. However, such indiscriminate remarks by a member of the Supreme Court is noteworthy.
One of the premises upon which Scalia based his remarks is simply wrong. The Geneva Convention does give certain rights to humane treatment to captured enemy combatants. Indeed, one might say that such protections relating to the rules of engagement in war are a fundamental reason for the Convention itself. It is true however, that the Geneva Convention does not expressly grant a detainee the right to access to civil courts. The access to civil rights and court process comes from the combination of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution. The Convention requires humane treatment of those within the control of US forces and authority. The Constitution provides rules and guidelines as to what such humane treatment entails. In effect, the Constitution defines the character of this Nation. If the Constitution permitted a system of summary execution without defense or right to face one's accuser, that would be the standard by which the US Government and courts would judge the treatment of detainees. But that is not the case, or at least not yet under the Bush administration and the current Supreme Court.
What Scalia seems to step over in his analysis is the assumption of guilt until innocense is proven, and applied in a situation where the opportunity to prove one's innocense is severely curtailed. The cases about the Gitmo detainees is primarily about the rights of prisoners to challenge the initial step in the process, the designation as "enemy combatant." Under current Bush administration rules and policies, a detainee does not even have the right to challenge the basis for being detained. In law, this is called "habeas corpus" or "present the body" to show why government action is taken. We have seen far too many examples in our judicial history of prisoners being condemned, imprisoned and in some cases even executed where the facts subsequently revealed conclusively that the wrong person had been accused. Imagine being imprisoned without access to counsel or the right to communicate with loved ones on the basis of being mistakenly identified as a political operative, or because a neighbor holding an old grudge falsely "informed" on you as being a terrorist.
So the question is not really whether to give solicitous aid to those who are justly detained for having actually participated in combat activities or in planning or directly abetting enemy activity. The question is whether the system under which these detainees are being held can withstand even a minor test of its integrity to determine whether it is consistent with the fundamental principals upon which we as a nation base our belief in democracy and liberty. Assuming that a detainee is actually an enemy combatant, simply because someone placed that label without explanation or review of the decision is tantamount to saying that a prisoner is guilty because the police arrested him or her. We need to question whether such a system reflects the character of this country that is founded upon and reflected in the US Constitution, as it has been construed throughout our history and under Supreme Court precedent.
If the last bastion of our democracy has lost sight of this basic responsibility and function, and Scalia's comments would suggest that possibility, then the nation is truly in trouble. We have met the enemy, and he is ourselves. We will have become the type of government and people that our government proposes to undermine and overthrow based upon some abstract concept of liberty, freedom and democracy that we do not ourselves embrace or believe in. At the very least, Scalia should have the decency and ethical propriety to recuse himself from hearing and deciding a case upon which he has publicly declared his specific opinion on the relevant issues as the final briefs were filed and only a few weeks prior to the oral argument before the Supreme Court. [For those of you who are unaware, the Supreme Court Justices are supposed to appear impartial, even if they cannot actually BE impartial in cases before them.]
One of the premises upon which Scalia based his remarks is simply wrong. The Geneva Convention does give certain rights to humane treatment to captured enemy combatants. Indeed, one might say that such protections relating to the rules of engagement in war are a fundamental reason for the Convention itself. It is true however, that the Geneva Convention does not expressly grant a detainee the right to access to civil courts. The access to civil rights and court process comes from the combination of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution. The Convention requires humane treatment of those within the control of US forces and authority. The Constitution provides rules and guidelines as to what such humane treatment entails. In effect, the Constitution defines the character of this Nation. If the Constitution permitted a system of summary execution without defense or right to face one's accuser, that would be the standard by which the US Government and courts would judge the treatment of detainees. But that is not the case, or at least not yet under the Bush administration and the current Supreme Court.
What Scalia seems to step over in his analysis is the assumption of guilt until innocense is proven, and applied in a situation where the opportunity to prove one's innocense is severely curtailed. The cases about the Gitmo detainees is primarily about the rights of prisoners to challenge the initial step in the process, the designation as "enemy combatant." Under current Bush administration rules and policies, a detainee does not even have the right to challenge the basis for being detained. In law, this is called "habeas corpus" or "present the body" to show why government action is taken. We have seen far too many examples in our judicial history of prisoners being condemned, imprisoned and in some cases even executed where the facts subsequently revealed conclusively that the wrong person had been accused. Imagine being imprisoned without access to counsel or the right to communicate with loved ones on the basis of being mistakenly identified as a political operative, or because a neighbor holding an old grudge falsely "informed" on you as being a terrorist.
So the question is not really whether to give solicitous aid to those who are justly detained for having actually participated in combat activities or in planning or directly abetting enemy activity. The question is whether the system under which these detainees are being held can withstand even a minor test of its integrity to determine whether it is consistent with the fundamental principals upon which we as a nation base our belief in democracy and liberty. Assuming that a detainee is actually an enemy combatant, simply because someone placed that label without explanation or review of the decision is tantamount to saying that a prisoner is guilty because the police arrested him or her. We need to question whether such a system reflects the character of this country that is founded upon and reflected in the US Constitution, as it has been construed throughout our history and under Supreme Court precedent.
If the last bastion of our democracy has lost sight of this basic responsibility and function, and Scalia's comments would suggest that possibility, then the nation is truly in trouble. We have met the enemy, and he is ourselves. We will have become the type of government and people that our government proposes to undermine and overthrow based upon some abstract concept of liberty, freedom and democracy that we do not ourselves embrace or believe in. At the very least, Scalia should have the decency and ethical propriety to recuse himself from hearing and deciding a case upon which he has publicly declared his specific opinion on the relevant issues as the final briefs were filed and only a few weeks prior to the oral argument before the Supreme Court. [For those of you who are unaware, the Supreme Court Justices are supposed to appear impartial, even if they cannot actually BE impartial in cases before them.]
Tom Delay : Valiant Rebel - or - Sociopath?
Tom Delay bowed out of the re-election campaign for his Congressional seat this fall. It may be a GOP strategy to attempt to campaign on a record of conduct that has resulted in criminal indictments on counts of money laundering and other deceitful crimes of moral turpitude. But a rational person would acknowledge that the behavior, even if he believed that criminal conviction is unlikely, raises sufficient questions of character and judgment to disqualify that person from high elective office. At the very least, one would step back and get the indictments resolved and return to political campaigning after being exonerated.
However, in the case of Tom Delay, one would not expect rational thought or action. Nor would the acknowledgement of the need to address legitimate concerns be uppermost in his mind. Delay's style of politics is that there is no such thing as right or wrong, legal or illegal. There is only winning and losing, successful strategy or defeated strategy. His opponents are "enemies" and not simply colleagues that have differing views or philosophies. This mindset is undoubtedly what got him into his current situation. But one has to accept that the public has tolerated, and possibly even encouraged, such amoral leadership. Delay has been cheered on and elected to Congressional leadership for his style of "take no prisoners" and "never take no for an answer" approach to party leadership and discipline. You either voted with Tom Delay or you were politically targeted for extinction. Huge amounts of money, regardless of the source, was amassed and distributed in exchange for voters and support. Former aides were positioned as infiltrators and watchdogs in influential lobbying organizations to make sure that the organizations gave kickbacks to Delay's regime and to assure that the compliant lobbying organizations got access and votes in return for their loyalty and monetary support.
As with any powerful organization built upon greed, intimidation and influence peddling, growth of the enterprise creates peril for the organization itself. When loyalty is born out of fear and distrust, or out of shady dealings, the "faithful" frequently seek any serious opportunity for control or revenge. When illegal activity is involved, it is nearly impossible to keep all the lies straight. Consequently, when a major player in such an organization is placed under intense scrutiny, as in a criminal indictment, the risk of subordinates turning "state's evidence" or "ratting out" their superiors becomes inevitable.
And this perhaps explains the timing of Delay's decision not to run for re-election and resign from Congress. A former chief aide has just entered into a plea bargain in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation of Delay and his confederates. Other associates have already cooperated, and it must have seemed inevitable to Delay that his intimidation and bullying tactics were not going to succeed in dismissal of the charges against him. So, by resigning and dropping out of the Congressional seat race, Delay can avoid public embarrassment and use his cache of campaign funds to pay his defense lawyers.
The public face of defiance that Delay is putting on is consistent with his mindset and public image. He probably believes that he has not engaged in, and indeed was not capable of," wrongdoing or illegal activity. Anyone challenging or accusing him of misconduct are just "poor losers" or left wing "liberals" who are only out to damage him politically. He must have a very difficult time thinking or listening to his attorneys’ advice that his behavior could be judges objectively to be unlawful. Since he has viewed himself as above the law, all this hubbub must seem very strange to a man like Tom Delay. If he goes down fighting, it will not be on the basis that his cause is "just." His defiance will be based upon his belief that he simply cannot lose, because the ends [his goals and objectives] justified any means used to achieve them.
However, in the case of Tom Delay, one would not expect rational thought or action. Nor would the acknowledgement of the need to address legitimate concerns be uppermost in his mind. Delay's style of politics is that there is no such thing as right or wrong, legal or illegal. There is only winning and losing, successful strategy or defeated strategy. His opponents are "enemies" and not simply colleagues that have differing views or philosophies. This mindset is undoubtedly what got him into his current situation. But one has to accept that the public has tolerated, and possibly even encouraged, such amoral leadership. Delay has been cheered on and elected to Congressional leadership for his style of "take no prisoners" and "never take no for an answer" approach to party leadership and discipline. You either voted with Tom Delay or you were politically targeted for extinction. Huge amounts of money, regardless of the source, was amassed and distributed in exchange for voters and support. Former aides were positioned as infiltrators and watchdogs in influential lobbying organizations to make sure that the organizations gave kickbacks to Delay's regime and to assure that the compliant lobbying organizations got access and votes in return for their loyalty and monetary support.
As with any powerful organization built upon greed, intimidation and influence peddling, growth of the enterprise creates peril for the organization itself. When loyalty is born out of fear and distrust, or out of shady dealings, the "faithful" frequently seek any serious opportunity for control or revenge. When illegal activity is involved, it is nearly impossible to keep all the lies straight. Consequently, when a major player in such an organization is placed under intense scrutiny, as in a criminal indictment, the risk of subordinates turning "state's evidence" or "ratting out" their superiors becomes inevitable.
And this perhaps explains the timing of Delay's decision not to run for re-election and resign from Congress. A former chief aide has just entered into a plea bargain in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation of Delay and his confederates. Other associates have already cooperated, and it must have seemed inevitable to Delay that his intimidation and bullying tactics were not going to succeed in dismissal of the charges against him. So, by resigning and dropping out of the Congressional seat race, Delay can avoid public embarrassment and use his cache of campaign funds to pay his defense lawyers.
The public face of defiance that Delay is putting on is consistent with his mindset and public image. He probably believes that he has not engaged in, and indeed was not capable of," wrongdoing or illegal activity. Anyone challenging or accusing him of misconduct are just "poor losers" or left wing "liberals" who are only out to damage him politically. He must have a very difficult time thinking or listening to his attorneys’ advice that his behavior could be judges objectively to be unlawful. Since he has viewed himself as above the law, all this hubbub must seem very strange to a man like Tom Delay. If he goes down fighting, it will not be on the basis that his cause is "just." His defiance will be based upon his belief that he simply cannot lose, because the ends [his goals and objectives] justified any means used to achieve them.
Libby: "Bush Personally Authorized Leaks in Plame Case"
Perhaps the most striking feature of today's Associated Press news report, that President Bush personally authorized leaking to the press information to discredit Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, is that it is anticlimactic. The breadth of duplicity, bad judgment and corruption within the Bush administration makes news of the President's direct involvement in those desperate dirty political shenanigans sound more like a firecracker than a bombshell. Most people who have analyzed the "outing" of covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame [Wilson's Wife], have opined that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove would not have engaged in leaking classified information to the press without direct authorization from their bosses. They were expected to fall on their swords like good martyrs to shield Bush and Cheney from responsibility when the lowly political dirty tricks they authorized came to light. But they are both too politically astute to engage in knowingly illegal actions without getting marching orders from the top.
One of the rules of playing cards is that you have to always remember that there is a joker in the deck. Perhaps Bush and Rove believed that they had full control of the Plame investigation. After all, Fitzgerald was not even a true "independent prosecutor." He was appointed by the Justice department under the President's control, so it was reasonable to expect two things. First that whoever was chosen would have political aspirations that would cause him or her to limit inquiries that got close to the President and his senior staff. Second, the investigator chosen would have sufficiently limited ethical standards that he would immediately back off when "advised " by the Bush White House that the investigation was getting into uncomfortable waters. But the investigator chosen turned out to be the joker in the deck. He is more concerned about doing his present job than worrying about what his next position might be. And he has followed the investigation carefully and tenaciously wherever it has led him, including what now appears to be the threshold of the Oval Office.
After being cast adrift by the White House, Scooter Libby ratted out his boss to the Federal Prosecutor. They say there is no honor among thieves, and I guess that the same goes for members of the cabal running the White House. The public facade of aggressive investigation and prosecution of the person(s) who leaked information about the President's illegal domestic spying program now seems pretty silly. Of course the President is entitled to take the paternal high horse approach and tell his subordinates "Do as I say, not as I do." But again, that approach is hardly the kind of inspiring leadership that commands the discipline and loyalty necessary to bind together the cadre of incompetent and corrupt functionaries that the President has surrounded himself with.
With the recent announcement of departures from White House senior staff, the problem of keeping a lid on and covering up the mistakes, incompetence and corruption that has characterized the Bush administration up to this point can only grow larger. With Delay heading for prison and Frist battling potential indictment himself, Congress can no longer be counted to back the President's moves and superficial explanations. In the past years, the GOP controlled Congress lapped up whatever Bush dished out, no matter how irrational or rife with cronyism and corruption. Representatives are now facing a mid term election, and being a mindless rubber stamp may not be as appealing to the constituents as it has appeared to be over the past five and one half years.
What is most disappointing is that members of Congress could have acted like competent seamen and taken the necessary measures to keep the Ship of State seaworthy. Instead, they have taken the approach of rats deserting a sinking ship.
One of the rules of playing cards is that you have to always remember that there is a joker in the deck. Perhaps Bush and Rove believed that they had full control of the Plame investigation. After all, Fitzgerald was not even a true "independent prosecutor." He was appointed by the Justice department under the President's control, so it was reasonable to expect two things. First that whoever was chosen would have political aspirations that would cause him or her to limit inquiries that got close to the President and his senior staff. Second, the investigator chosen would have sufficiently limited ethical standards that he would immediately back off when "advised " by the Bush White House that the investigation was getting into uncomfortable waters. But the investigator chosen turned out to be the joker in the deck. He is more concerned about doing his present job than worrying about what his next position might be. And he has followed the investigation carefully and tenaciously wherever it has led him, including what now appears to be the threshold of the Oval Office.
After being cast adrift by the White House, Scooter Libby ratted out his boss to the Federal Prosecutor. They say there is no honor among thieves, and I guess that the same goes for members of the cabal running the White House. The public facade of aggressive investigation and prosecution of the person(s) who leaked information about the President's illegal domestic spying program now seems pretty silly. Of course the President is entitled to take the paternal high horse approach and tell his subordinates "Do as I say, not as I do." But again, that approach is hardly the kind of inspiring leadership that commands the discipline and loyalty necessary to bind together the cadre of incompetent and corrupt functionaries that the President has surrounded himself with.
With the recent announcement of departures from White House senior staff, the problem of keeping a lid on and covering up the mistakes, incompetence and corruption that has characterized the Bush administration up to this point can only grow larger. With Delay heading for prison and Frist battling potential indictment himself, Congress can no longer be counted to back the President's moves and superficial explanations. In the past years, the GOP controlled Congress lapped up whatever Bush dished out, no matter how irrational or rife with cronyism and corruption. Representatives are now facing a mid term election, and being a mindless rubber stamp may not be as appealing to the constituents as it has appeared to be over the past five and one half years.
What is most disappointing is that members of Congress could have acted like competent seamen and taken the necessary measures to keep the Ship of State seaworthy. Instead, they have taken the approach of rats deserting a sinking ship.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Which George is it Anyway? George III, George Orwell, or George W. Bush?
Reading the news these days is like perusing an Orwellian novel. The excursion into a fantasy world might be entertaining, but for the fact that current news reports are not intended as fiction.
The Supreme Court today hears oral arguments on the case challenging the Bush administration tribunals established to prosecute and judge what would otherwise be called "alleged" enemy combatants in the "War on Terror." Under the tribunal system, a detainee is labeled an "enemy combatant" without the right to challenge the accuracy or basis for the designation. The President determines and defines the "crimes" for which a detainee can be tried and convicted. The procedures used to try the detainee can be changed at any time that the Bush administration chooses. The right to test or challenge evidence presented against the detainee can be curtailed or eliminated. The presiding official is not required to be "impartial" and may be in the chain of command that includes the prosecutor. And the conviction and punishment of a detainee under these procedures, up to and including execution, is reviewable only by the President, without any oversight by the Legislative or Judicial Branches of government. Government lawyers argue that, at the time of the Revolutionary War when the Constitution was written, war prisoners could be shot on sight, so the current procedures are really doing the detainees a favor. They reluctantly concede, however, that there have been a few hundred years and some minor evolution of civilization and concepts of civil rights since that time.
One Supreme Court Justice [Roberts] has decided to recuse himself because he previously participated in review of the process in a lower appellate court proceeding. Another Justice, [Scalia] has already publicly stated that detainees have no rights under the Constitution or Geneva Convention. Justice Thomas lacks the ability to think independently, so he can be expected to vote however Scalia tells him to vote. It is up to the other six Justices to decide whether our Constitution and laws impose any constraints upon Presidential power and perogatives, once he declares that the country is at war.
Virtually all experts concede that the President has plenary power to use measures he deems militarily necessary to repel an attack or invasion. That discretion is generally seen to be limited to 15 days, unless a longer period can be effectively demonstrated as necessary. The 9/11 attack was years ago and there has been no demonstration of an actual subsequent attack or incursion since that time. The use of 9/11 or the Congressional authorization to use necessary force to support continued exercise of those "emergency" powers seems very stretched, if not completely disingenuous. Thus, in deciding this case, the Court may have to address whether the nation is, in fact, at war. If we are not in the emergent circumstances that were contemplated by the grant of emergency war powers, that justification for the tribunals will not stand.
Another issue to be addressed is whether, even in wartime, the President is not restricted by the Geneva Convention. That treaty and internationally accepted set of rules governing war does accord certain rights to prisoners and detainees, including those accused of being war criminals. The Bush administration argues that it is not bound by the Geneva Convention.
There is a school of thought that arrogates all power to the President, the ability to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, the authority to arrest and cause detainees to disappear or be executed without due process, and that all otehr branches of government are subservient to the Executive. There is a list of National leaders with similar attitudes toward international law and civil rights: Pinochet, Allende, Noriega, Amin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, and others. The question is why George W. Bush is so determined to add his name to the list.
The Supreme Court today hears oral arguments on the case challenging the Bush administration tribunals established to prosecute and judge what would otherwise be called "alleged" enemy combatants in the "War on Terror." Under the tribunal system, a detainee is labeled an "enemy combatant" without the right to challenge the accuracy or basis for the designation. The President determines and defines the "crimes" for which a detainee can be tried and convicted. The procedures used to try the detainee can be changed at any time that the Bush administration chooses. The right to test or challenge evidence presented against the detainee can be curtailed or eliminated. The presiding official is not required to be "impartial" and may be in the chain of command that includes the prosecutor. And the conviction and punishment of a detainee under these procedures, up to and including execution, is reviewable only by the President, without any oversight by the Legislative or Judicial Branches of government. Government lawyers argue that, at the time of the Revolutionary War when the Constitution was written, war prisoners could be shot on sight, so the current procedures are really doing the detainees a favor. They reluctantly concede, however, that there have been a few hundred years and some minor evolution of civilization and concepts of civil rights since that time.
One Supreme Court Justice [Roberts] has decided to recuse himself because he previously participated in review of the process in a lower appellate court proceeding. Another Justice, [Scalia] has already publicly stated that detainees have no rights under the Constitution or Geneva Convention. Justice Thomas lacks the ability to think independently, so he can be expected to vote however Scalia tells him to vote. It is up to the other six Justices to decide whether our Constitution and laws impose any constraints upon Presidential power and perogatives, once he declares that the country is at war.
Virtually all experts concede that the President has plenary power to use measures he deems militarily necessary to repel an attack or invasion. That discretion is generally seen to be limited to 15 days, unless a longer period can be effectively demonstrated as necessary. The 9/11 attack was years ago and there has been no demonstration of an actual subsequent attack or incursion since that time. The use of 9/11 or the Congressional authorization to use necessary force to support continued exercise of those "emergency" powers seems very stretched, if not completely disingenuous. Thus, in deciding this case, the Court may have to address whether the nation is, in fact, at war. If we are not in the emergent circumstances that were contemplated by the grant of emergency war powers, that justification for the tribunals will not stand.
Another issue to be addressed is whether, even in wartime, the President is not restricted by the Geneva Convention. That treaty and internationally accepted set of rules governing war does accord certain rights to prisoners and detainees, including those accused of being war criminals. The Bush administration argues that it is not bound by the Geneva Convention.
There is a school of thought that arrogates all power to the President, the ability to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, the authority to arrest and cause detainees to disappear or be executed without due process, and that all otehr branches of government are subservient to the Executive. There is a list of National leaders with similar attitudes toward international law and civil rights: Pinochet, Allende, Noriega, Amin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, and others. The question is why George W. Bush is so determined to add his name to the list.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Scalia and The Gitmo Detainee Case - or "Who Are We Really?"
For those waiting for the next shoe to drop, consider the noise arising from the largely unpublicized speech of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to be a strong indicator of its descent. Speaking to an audience primarily of legal acadamicians in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that detainees who have been labeled "enemy combatants" have any rights under the Geneva Convention or the US Constitution. He did indirectly acknowledge a bias that could influence his judgment by referencing his son who was deployed by the US Army to Iraq. One can understand a somewhat less tolerant attitude toward those who pose a direct threat to a loved one. However, such indiscriminate remarks by a member of the Supreme Court is noteworthy.
One of the premises upon which Scalia based his remarks is simply wrong. The Geneva Convention does give certain rights to humane treatment to captured enemy combatants. Indeed, one might say that such protections relating to the rules of engagement in war are a fundamental reason for the Convention itself. It is true however, that the Geneva Convention does not expressly grant a detainee the right to access to civil courts. The access to civil rights and court process comes from the combination of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution. The Convention requires humane treatment of those within the control of US forces and authority. The Constitution provides rules and guidelines as to what such humane treatment entails. In effect, the Constitution defines the character of this Nation. If the Constitution permitted a system of summary execution without defense or right to face one's accuser, that would be the standard by which the US Government and courts would judge the treatment of detainees. But that is not the case, or at least not yet under the Bush administration and the current Supreme Court.
What Scalia seems to step over in his analysis is the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven, and applied in a situation where the opportunity to prove one's innocense is severely curtailed. The cases about the Gitmo detainees is primarily about the rights of prisoners to challenge the initial step in the process, the designation as "enemy combatant." Under current Bush administration rules and policies, a detainee does not even have the right to challenge the basis for being detained. In law, this is called "habeas corpus" or "present the body" to show why government action is taken. We have seen far too many examples in our judicial history of prisoners being condemned, imprisoned and in some cases even executed where the facts subsequently revealed conclusively that the wrong person had been accused. Imagine being imprisoned without access to counsel or the right to communicate with loved ones on the basis of being mistakenly identified as a political operative, or because a neighbor holding an old grudge falsely "informed" on you as being a terrorist.
There is also the prickly question of what constitutes a "war" for purposes of suspending and curtailing civil rights and liberties in this country. In the present circumstances, we are engaged in a military action against foreign combatants who have neither attacked or threatened the United States. This is labeled a "War on Terror" by the President. If that is a sufficient basis, then we would need to have some way of determining when the "war" has ended. Would that be when the government has decided that every last "terrorist" anywhere in the world has been captured or killed? When troops were deployed in Bosnia or Somalia on "peacekeeping" missions, did the use of military force to subdue an insurgency constitute a "war?" Does the "War on Drugs" in which military interdiction and assistance to capture traffikers suffice to suspend civil liberties? It is, to say the least, a slippery slope.
So the question is not really whether to give solicitous aid to those who are justly detained for having actually participated in actual combat activities against the US or its allies, or in planning or directly abetting enemy activity. The question is whether the system under which these detainees are being held can withstand even a minor test of its integrity to determine whether it is consistent with the fundamental principals upon which we as a nation base our belief in democracy and liberty. Assuming that a detainee is actually an enemy combatant, simply because someone placed that label without explanation or review of the decision is tantamount to saying that a prisoner is guilty because the police arrested him or her. We need to question whether such a system reflects the character of this country that is founded upon and reflected in the US Constitution, as it has been construed throughout our history and under Supreme Court precedent.
If the last bastion of our democracy has lost sight of this basic responsibility and function, and Scalia's comments would suggest that possibility, then the nation is truly in trouble. We have met the enemy, and he is ourselves. We will have become the type of government and people that our government proposes to undermine and overthrow based upon some abstract concept of liberty, freedom and democracy that we do not ourselves embrace or believe in.
One of the premises upon which Scalia based his remarks is simply wrong. The Geneva Convention does give certain rights to humane treatment to captured enemy combatants. Indeed, one might say that such protections relating to the rules of engagement in war are a fundamental reason for the Convention itself. It is true however, that the Geneva Convention does not expressly grant a detainee the right to access to civil courts. The access to civil rights and court process comes from the combination of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution. The Convention requires humane treatment of those within the control of US forces and authority. The Constitution provides rules and guidelines as to what such humane treatment entails. In effect, the Constitution defines the character of this Nation. If the Constitution permitted a system of summary execution without defense or right to face one's accuser, that would be the standard by which the US Government and courts would judge the treatment of detainees. But that is not the case, or at least not yet under the Bush administration and the current Supreme Court.
What Scalia seems to step over in his analysis is the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven, and applied in a situation where the opportunity to prove one's innocense is severely curtailed. The cases about the Gitmo detainees is primarily about the rights of prisoners to challenge the initial step in the process, the designation as "enemy combatant." Under current Bush administration rules and policies, a detainee does not even have the right to challenge the basis for being detained. In law, this is called "habeas corpus" or "present the body" to show why government action is taken. We have seen far too many examples in our judicial history of prisoners being condemned, imprisoned and in some cases even executed where the facts subsequently revealed conclusively that the wrong person had been accused. Imagine being imprisoned without access to counsel or the right to communicate with loved ones on the basis of being mistakenly identified as a political operative, or because a neighbor holding an old grudge falsely "informed" on you as being a terrorist.
There is also the prickly question of what constitutes a "war" for purposes of suspending and curtailing civil rights and liberties in this country. In the present circumstances, we are engaged in a military action against foreign combatants who have neither attacked or threatened the United States. This is labeled a "War on Terror" by the President. If that is a sufficient basis, then we would need to have some way of determining when the "war" has ended. Would that be when the government has decided that every last "terrorist" anywhere in the world has been captured or killed? When troops were deployed in Bosnia or Somalia on "peacekeeping" missions, did the use of military force to subdue an insurgency constitute a "war?" Does the "War on Drugs" in which military interdiction and assistance to capture traffikers suffice to suspend civil liberties? It is, to say the least, a slippery slope.
So the question is not really whether to give solicitous aid to those who are justly detained for having actually participated in actual combat activities against the US or its allies, or in planning or directly abetting enemy activity. The question is whether the system under which these detainees are being held can withstand even a minor test of its integrity to determine whether it is consistent with the fundamental principals upon which we as a nation base our belief in democracy and liberty. Assuming that a detainee is actually an enemy combatant, simply because someone placed that label without explanation or review of the decision is tantamount to saying that a prisoner is guilty because the police arrested him or her. We need to question whether such a system reflects the character of this country that is founded upon and reflected in the US Constitution, as it has been construed throughout our history and under Supreme Court precedent.
If the last bastion of our democracy has lost sight of this basic responsibility and function, and Scalia's comments would suggest that possibility, then the nation is truly in trouble. We have met the enemy, and he is ourselves. We will have become the type of government and people that our government proposes to undermine and overthrow based upon some abstract concept of liberty, freedom and democracy that we do not ourselves embrace or believe in.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Bush Media Blitz - "Talkin' Loud, But Sayin' Nothing"
In a series of speeches this past week, President bush has opened a media offensive to try to stem the hemorrhaging public support indicated in the polls. The most significant changes in this most recent blitz are that he has finally decided to speak to audiences that have not been completely sanitized and screened to prevent any dissenting opinion from marring his staged media appearances, and his acknowledgement of flagging public support. In fact, he even held a news conference for the first time in many months.
The message in these speeches, however, is essentially more of the same. He asserts that he does have a plan for victory Iraq, that the war effort is making progress and he blamed the media for portraying an overly pessimistic view of the situation in Iraq. What is not clear is whether such appearances will help his dismal standing in the polls, or nervousness of GOP representatives facing re-election this fall, when 40% of Republicans believe that the President lacks any coherent strategy for ending US troop involvement in Iraq. That view certainly could not have been helped when Bush stated that removal of troops from Iraq would be for "future presidents" to determine. In effect, he punted on the issue when questioned about providing any specifics of this "plan" that he allegedly has. His vague and repeated assertions about the "progress" in Iraq are in direct conflict with the broad based reports from international media sources on the ground, as well as US military reports.
The Iraqi army readiness level dropped from one unit to none, in terms of units capable of functioning without US leadership and support. Daily bombings and reports of killings and assassination in sectarian or insurgent violence indicate that the 'pacification" goals are more fantasy than fact. It would be a real stretch to suggest that the media of the entire world are conspiring to give Bush and his administration a black eye, especially with what the administration has shown in the way of ability to manufacture and plant positive news stories in the media. More likely, the picture painted by the media actually reflects the situation better than the rose colored view that Bush is selling in his recent speeches.
The most informative aspect of the speeches seems to be their provision of a glimpse into the mind of Bush and an ability to better determine whether Bush is just out of touch with the public, the domestic situation and the Iraq occupation, or whether he is truly delusional and actually believes that the world is as he would describe it. Unfortunately, the canned and repetitive nature of his speeches do not give a clear answer to that quandary. When GOP Congressional leaders have suggested that Bush adjust his message and strategy to take into account both changed circumstances and the deepening distrust of the public in his leadership and competence, he has rebuffed such advice. He has refused calls to bring in "new blood" that have been put forward by nervous GOP strategists for months. Again, the old cliche says that ignorance is curable, but stupidity is a choice to remain ignorant. It seems that the behavior of Bush veers toward the latter
So Bush goes about his media campaign saying nothing new about his strategy or plans, despite a continually worsening situation at home and abroad. Shakespeare spoke of the tales of an idiot "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A more recent poet, James Brown, broke it down thusly, "talkin' loud, but ain't sayin' nothing!"
The message in these speeches, however, is essentially more of the same. He asserts that he does have a plan for victory Iraq, that the war effort is making progress and he blamed the media for portraying an overly pessimistic view of the situation in Iraq. What is not clear is whether such appearances will help his dismal standing in the polls, or nervousness of GOP representatives facing re-election this fall, when 40% of Republicans believe that the President lacks any coherent strategy for ending US troop involvement in Iraq. That view certainly could not have been helped when Bush stated that removal of troops from Iraq would be for "future presidents" to determine. In effect, he punted on the issue when questioned about providing any specifics of this "plan" that he allegedly has. His vague and repeated assertions about the "progress" in Iraq are in direct conflict with the broad based reports from international media sources on the ground, as well as US military reports.
The Iraqi army readiness level dropped from one unit to none, in terms of units capable of functioning without US leadership and support. Daily bombings and reports of killings and assassination in sectarian or insurgent violence indicate that the 'pacification" goals are more fantasy than fact. It would be a real stretch to suggest that the media of the entire world are conspiring to give Bush and his administration a black eye, especially with what the administration has shown in the way of ability to manufacture and plant positive news stories in the media. More likely, the picture painted by the media actually reflects the situation better than the rose colored view that Bush is selling in his recent speeches.
The most informative aspect of the speeches seems to be their provision of a glimpse into the mind of Bush and an ability to better determine whether Bush is just out of touch with the public, the domestic situation and the Iraq occupation, or whether he is truly delusional and actually believes that the world is as he would describe it. Unfortunately, the canned and repetitive nature of his speeches do not give a clear answer to that quandary. When GOP Congressional leaders have suggested that Bush adjust his message and strategy to take into account both changed circumstances and the deepening distrust of the public in his leadership and competence, he has rebuffed such advice. He has refused calls to bring in "new blood" that have been put forward by nervous GOP strategists for months. Again, the old cliche says that ignorance is curable, but stupidity is a choice to remain ignorant. It seems that the behavior of Bush veers toward the latter
So Bush goes about his media campaign saying nothing new about his strategy or plans, despite a continually worsening situation at home and abroad. Shakespeare spoke of the tales of an idiot "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A more recent poet, James Brown, broke it down thusly, "talkin' loud, but ain't sayin' nothing!"
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Bush Ratings Slump - A Real Downer
New polls assessing public sentiment regarding the job performance of President Bush indicate the lowest approval of his entire tenure. Like the flip side of the Stock Market watch with news of daily historical highs, the public approval of George W. Bush's handling of the presidency continually seems to reach daily historic lows. Multiple polls currently yield identical results, lending credibility to the assessment. At overall approval running about 35%, it is fair to say that only about 1/3 of the Nation approves of the job GWB is doing. An interesting observation is that the disapproval runs across virtually all areas of competence and responsibility that the President is charged with. On domestic issues and the environment, approval barely reaches 30%.
The stock market is a curious beast, and it is difficult to explain its current rises toward levels close to that of five years ago at the inception of the Bush administration. Whether the buying binge is a sign of confidence in the future course of the economy, or a doomsday mentality of investors trying to make as much as they can quickly, before the bottom falls out, is unclear. If one looks at economic indicators, the relatively low interest rates could encourage investment in both stocks and in business equipment and machinery. Most of the "new jobs" allegedly created by the Bush administration, which continue to grow at rates less than projected, have been minimum wage, menial or hourly labor jobs. Only recently have reports begun to appear suggesting that employers are hiring middle managers. The looming presence is the national debt. After just raising the debt ceiling by about 900 Billion dollars to nearly 9 Trillion dollars, the interest tab the US government must pay on that debt consumes an increasing share of the annual budget. In essence, the funds we are paying in taxes and fees are increasingly going to pay debt rather than for infrastructure, services to the public or anything productive.
The Iraq invasion seems to be crawling out from under a rock in the view of the public. Bush administration propaganda, media negligence and inattention have kept many from seeing the "mission" for the ill conceived and even more poorly executed debacle that it is. Only yesterday I heard a caller on a NPR radio talk show concede that there "probably" were no WMD's and biological weapons in Iraq when the invasion began. It is doubtful that he is the only person remaining who has not read the comprehensive documentation and heard the President's concession that there were none. Propaganda and high powered, well financed PR spin machines are effective tools that have been used to fool the public. This explains why we still see Bush making public speeches that are clearly misleading and more frequently outright lies. He is not preaching to the intelligencia, he is seeking to reinforce the brainwashing that has been accomplished during Karl Rove's tenure and Minister of mind control.
In a recent news conference, when asked about the stalled effort and civil war situation in Iraq, Bush used the old snake oil salesman's retort - "Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?" He tells the public that things are improving despite the fact that all independent reports and even a substantial number of administration reports suggest the exact opposite. He says that people who say he wanted war are wrong, when a mountain of evidence shows that the invasion was not necessary and that there was no immediate or imminent threat from Iraq, Saddam Hussein or anyone in the Hussein regime in Iraq. Again, he says that his vision of leadership is to "stay the course" until "victory" is achieved. Whether he is deceitful or delusional, the influence of the President to get people to believe the unbelievable and accept lies as truth is on the wane.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But it does appear that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And with mid-term elections closing in this November, more and more GOP congressional representatives are coming down from their acid trips and beginning to look at the world with eyes free of hallucinogens and recognize that their political survival depends upon responding to the world as it really is, instead of the fantasy created by the Bush PR machine.
The stock market is a curious beast, and it is difficult to explain its current rises toward levels close to that of five years ago at the inception of the Bush administration. Whether the buying binge is a sign of confidence in the future course of the economy, or a doomsday mentality of investors trying to make as much as they can quickly, before the bottom falls out, is unclear. If one looks at economic indicators, the relatively low interest rates could encourage investment in both stocks and in business equipment and machinery. Most of the "new jobs" allegedly created by the Bush administration, which continue to grow at rates less than projected, have been minimum wage, menial or hourly labor jobs. Only recently have reports begun to appear suggesting that employers are hiring middle managers. The looming presence is the national debt. After just raising the debt ceiling by about 900 Billion dollars to nearly 9 Trillion dollars, the interest tab the US government must pay on that debt consumes an increasing share of the annual budget. In essence, the funds we are paying in taxes and fees are increasingly going to pay debt rather than for infrastructure, services to the public or anything productive.
The Iraq invasion seems to be crawling out from under a rock in the view of the public. Bush administration propaganda, media negligence and inattention have kept many from seeing the "mission" for the ill conceived and even more poorly executed debacle that it is. Only yesterday I heard a caller on a NPR radio talk show concede that there "probably" were no WMD's and biological weapons in Iraq when the invasion began. It is doubtful that he is the only person remaining who has not read the comprehensive documentation and heard the President's concession that there were none. Propaganda and high powered, well financed PR spin machines are effective tools that have been used to fool the public. This explains why we still see Bush making public speeches that are clearly misleading and more frequently outright lies. He is not preaching to the intelligencia, he is seeking to reinforce the brainwashing that has been accomplished during Karl Rove's tenure and Minister of mind control.
In a recent news conference, when asked about the stalled effort and civil war situation in Iraq, Bush used the old snake oil salesman's retort - "Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?" He tells the public that things are improving despite the fact that all independent reports and even a substantial number of administration reports suggest the exact opposite. He says that people who say he wanted war are wrong, when a mountain of evidence shows that the invasion was not necessary and that there was no immediate or imminent threat from Iraq, Saddam Hussein or anyone in the Hussein regime in Iraq. Again, he says that his vision of leadership is to "stay the course" until "victory" is achieved. Whether he is deceitful or delusional, the influence of the President to get people to believe the unbelievable and accept lies as truth is on the wane.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But it does appear that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And with mid-term elections closing in this November, more and more GOP congressional representatives are coming down from their acid trips and beginning to look at the world with eyes free of hallucinogens and recognize that their political survival depends upon responding to the world as it really is, instead of the fantasy created by the Bush PR machine.
FEMA to recover "undeserved" Katrina Aid
After receiving round criticism for its poor judgment and execution of relief efforts relating to the Katrina hurricane disaster, FEMA again displays judgment that suggests that whoever may be heading the agency has not gotten wiser with time and experience. GAO audits revealed sloppy management in delivery of relief funds to those impacted by the disaster. While acknowledging the importance of getting the aid out to needy households [after a loud public and Congressional protest over inaction], GAO suggested that some fraud prevention controls could and should have been put in place. The amount of money that was given out to households or persons who were possibly undeserving could have been as much as $100 million. This sounds like a typical report from an independent auditor.
What is noteworthy is the subsequent determination by FEMA to go after and spend substantial funds to prosecute individuals who may have received as much as $2000 in aid that may have been undeserved or overpaid [because of duplicate payments by FEMA]. No one suggests that the misapplication or misuse of government funds is not an issue of concern.
The public policy implication of using government resources to prosecute poor individuals who received small payments as a result of a frantic and disorganized push to deliver aid in a disaster situation is telling. We have seen documentation of deliberate and fraudulent overcharges by Halliburton and its subsidiaries for no-bid contract services in Iraq and relating to the Katrina relief. We see reports of "contractors" handing out truckloads of funds without records, monitoring or audit controls in Iraq that amounted to millions of dollars. Little has been done to prosecute Halliburton or to recover the funds obtained by fraud and overcharging. The excuse for not prosecuting contractors for handing out or diverting funds for which no services or justification has been received is that the situation was emergent or chaotic and it was unclear who was in charge. What is not evident is how that excuse differs from the circumstances under which Katrina aid was delivered. Moreover, a single prosecution of Brown & Root could yield 100 to 10,000 times the recovery that prosecution of a Katrina aid recipient might yield.
There is an old cynical cliche in Black neighborhoods, that if you are Black and poor and steal a loaf of bread - you will go to jail for years; but if you are white and rich and steal a million dollars - you will get a promotion or another contract. Perhaps the Bush administration has heard the cliche and adopted it as its domestic policy.
What is noteworthy is the subsequent determination by FEMA to go after and spend substantial funds to prosecute individuals who may have received as much as $2000 in aid that may have been undeserved or overpaid [because of duplicate payments by FEMA]. No one suggests that the misapplication or misuse of government funds is not an issue of concern.
The public policy implication of using government resources to prosecute poor individuals who received small payments as a result of a frantic and disorganized push to deliver aid in a disaster situation is telling. We have seen documentation of deliberate and fraudulent overcharges by Halliburton and its subsidiaries for no-bid contract services in Iraq and relating to the Katrina relief. We see reports of "contractors" handing out truckloads of funds without records, monitoring or audit controls in Iraq that amounted to millions of dollars. Little has been done to prosecute Halliburton or to recover the funds obtained by fraud and overcharging. The excuse for not prosecuting contractors for handing out or diverting funds for which no services or justification has been received is that the situation was emergent or chaotic and it was unclear who was in charge. What is not evident is how that excuse differs from the circumstances under which Katrina aid was delivered. Moreover, a single prosecution of Brown & Root could yield 100 to 10,000 times the recovery that prosecution of a Katrina aid recipient might yield.
There is an old cynical cliche in Black neighborhoods, that if you are Black and poor and steal a loaf of bread - you will go to jail for years; but if you are white and rich and steal a million dollars - you will get a promotion or another contract. Perhaps the Bush administration has heard the cliche and adopted it as its domestic policy.
Friday, March 10, 2006
"Another Fine Mess You Gotten Me Into"- GOP wary of Bush
After following GWB for five years like a pack of hyenas or mindless lemmings, GOP Congressional Representatives facing the electorate about 8 months from now have finally lifted their noses to the political winds and found the aroma more of a stench than a blissful scent. Finally beginning to realize that the path upon which they have been "led" has brought them to an untenable quagmire, the signs of revolt are breaking out everywhere. Recrimination, back biting and other distinctly non-collegial behaviors are becoming so evident that the media is obliged to report breaks in the ranks, despite their reluctance to report any discouraging word regarding the Bush/Cheney "Empire's" reign.
The Bush administration, with Karl Rove at the helm, has so successfully created hype and hysteria based upon bigoted race and religious fears that the nation is cautiously looking for the enemy" under every bed and especially among non-white people or those of a non-Christian religion. Civil rights protections have been trampled and abandoned with only marginal protest, and daily lives substantially burdened for the sake of an illusion of "national security." With the country primed to distrust and hate all things "Arab," the White House was caught unawares when approval of a multi-billion dollar deal to turn over operational control of six major US ports to a company owned by a United Arab Emirates nation surfaced. This really put Bush in the middle of a mess. Eager to appear publicly like he knew what he was doing, Bush reacted to criticism of the deal by threatening to veto any legislation intended to block the deal. News leaked out that Bush was not even on top of the details of the transaction when the story broke, a typical state of awareness Bush seems to exhibit when critical affairs of state arise.
After months and months of stumping around the nation spouting platitudes that he promises to do everything in his power to protect "national security" and the American people, the White House support for ceding control of major ports to a company owned by a Nation that had direct involvement in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 seemed a bit too much for even the hyenas to swallow. GOP representatives and even Congressional GOP leadership threatened to introduce legislation to block the deal unless the White House backed down. Congressional Democrats could express public "outrage" while sitting back in their impotent seats and allowing the GOP to savage its own.
As a practical matter, it is far from clear that the operation of Major US ports would be any less safe under the direction of a company owned by Dubai or any other country. The current port operations involve a variety of companies handling imports and freight. A recent study showed that a substantial percentage of the workers and truck drivers currently handling freight at major ports have criminal records and false identification papers. So the situation would be unlikely to worsen, and the ports are very far from "safe" or "secure" at the present time, more than four years after 9/11 and after Bush began making his pledge to the American people.
But the furor created by the Port operations deal is based largely upon bigotry incited by the Bush Administration and the GOP Leadership [with the help of some supposed "leaders" in the Democratic loyal opposition] against Arabs and Muslims. It is an unfortunate storm that speaks ill of the character of this Nation and its people. But it is a storm of choice, not a force of nature or "act of God" by any means. The controversy is not really about making the ports safer from potential terrorist threats, any more than invading Iraq was about making the US safer. In a larger sense, it is about a collision between a basic GOP principle of "Free Trade" and an Administration committed to amoral exploitation, corruption and greed. But for the polemics and hyperbole necessitated by the phony "War on Terror" used as a cover for the orchestrated illegal invasion of Iraq in order to gain control of Middle east petroleum reserves, the ports deal would probably not have seen major opposition. But the public/electorate is attuned to distrust all things Arab as a potential threat to "national security."
Caught in a quagmire of philosophical contradiction and public distrust as a result of moves orchestrated by ineffectual and incompetent White House leadership, GOP Congressional Representatives fear the November "killing fields" of the electorate where they will be caught in a crossfire between a staunch GOP base accusing them of party disloyalty, and other voters blaming them for following Bush into such a stupid situation in the first place without thinking or questioning the rationality of Administration policies and actions. Democrats who supported the President and GOP moves that led to this quagmire should be similarly concerned. Listening to the rhetoric and sloganeering, instead of putting in the effort to truly examine what was being done may prove to have been not only lazy, but politically dangerous.
The Bush administration, with Karl Rove at the helm, has so successfully created hype and hysteria based upon bigoted race and religious fears that the nation is cautiously looking for the enemy" under every bed and especially among non-white people or those of a non-Christian religion. Civil rights protections have been trampled and abandoned with only marginal protest, and daily lives substantially burdened for the sake of an illusion of "national security." With the country primed to distrust and hate all things "Arab," the White House was caught unawares when approval of a multi-billion dollar deal to turn over operational control of six major US ports to a company owned by a United Arab Emirates nation surfaced. This really put Bush in the middle of a mess. Eager to appear publicly like he knew what he was doing, Bush reacted to criticism of the deal by threatening to veto any legislation intended to block the deal. News leaked out that Bush was not even on top of the details of the transaction when the story broke, a typical state of awareness Bush seems to exhibit when critical affairs of state arise.
After months and months of stumping around the nation spouting platitudes that he promises to do everything in his power to protect "national security" and the American people, the White House support for ceding control of major ports to a company owned by a Nation that had direct involvement in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 seemed a bit too much for even the hyenas to swallow. GOP representatives and even Congressional GOP leadership threatened to introduce legislation to block the deal unless the White House backed down. Congressional Democrats could express public "outrage" while sitting back in their impotent seats and allowing the GOP to savage its own.
As a practical matter, it is far from clear that the operation of Major US ports would be any less safe under the direction of a company owned by Dubai or any other country. The current port operations involve a variety of companies handling imports and freight. A recent study showed that a substantial percentage of the workers and truck drivers currently handling freight at major ports have criminal records and false identification papers. So the situation would be unlikely to worsen, and the ports are very far from "safe" or "secure" at the present time, more than four years after 9/11 and after Bush began making his pledge to the American people.
But the furor created by the Port operations deal is based largely upon bigotry incited by the Bush Administration and the GOP Leadership [with the help of some supposed "leaders" in the Democratic loyal opposition] against Arabs and Muslims. It is an unfortunate storm that speaks ill of the character of this Nation and its people. But it is a storm of choice, not a force of nature or "act of God" by any means. The controversy is not really about making the ports safer from potential terrorist threats, any more than invading Iraq was about making the US safer. In a larger sense, it is about a collision between a basic GOP principle of "Free Trade" and an Administration committed to amoral exploitation, corruption and greed. But for the polemics and hyperbole necessitated by the phony "War on Terror" used as a cover for the orchestrated illegal invasion of Iraq in order to gain control of Middle east petroleum reserves, the ports deal would probably not have seen major opposition. But the public/electorate is attuned to distrust all things Arab as a potential threat to "national security."
Caught in a quagmire of philosophical contradiction and public distrust as a result of moves orchestrated by ineffectual and incompetent White House leadership, GOP Congressional Representatives fear the November "killing fields" of the electorate where they will be caught in a crossfire between a staunch GOP base accusing them of party disloyalty, and other voters blaming them for following Bush into such a stupid situation in the first place without thinking or questioning the rationality of Administration policies and actions. Democrats who supported the President and GOP moves that led to this quagmire should be similarly concerned. Listening to the rhetoric and sloganeering, instead of putting in the effort to truly examine what was being done may prove to have been not only lazy, but politically dangerous.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
President Bush and National Port Security
Many of you are no doubt befuddled and concerned about the seemingly irrational policy decision by the Bush administration to turn over control and operation of six of the nation's largest and most sensitive ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Please rest easy. There is a method to the madness and a rational explanation for the Bush support of the transaction. You may not LIKE the rationale, but it does make sense to true Patriots.
Before you get in an uproar, and work yourself into an apoplectic fit over the seeming incongruity, let's review the situation. The President claims that he needs to trample and curtail civil rights and basic Democratic freedoms in the interests of protecting "National Security." He declares that neither the Congress nor the Constitution has the authority to limit his perogatives in his quest, if protecting National Security is his goal. The end justifies any means he may conceive or manufacture. He has established a new Cabinet level Agency for "Homeland Security" to make sure that federal policy and executive initiatives or action are consistent with protecting national security and protecting Americans. Goodness! I almost feel better about giving up my Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights, knowing that I can go to sleep each night with the comfort that only the FBI, the CIA or some federal agent will storm my bedroom and take me hostage. At least it will not be some foreign "terrorist." Good old GW is at the ready and ever vigilant [except perhaps whenever an emergency like 9/11 or Katrina strikes after the President had significant prior warning, but everybody makes some mistakes, right?]
Now we are told that GW has carefully reviewed the decision to transfer control of major US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. And some of you question the decision. Perhaps you are just being Arabophobic? After all, the Bush family has had financial dealings and strong financial ties to the UAE for many years and why should we not trust the Bush family to look out for the best interests of the nation? We should not be ready to reject a very profitable deal just because the transaction involves Arabs.
But you argue that your objections really are not based upon the fact that the company is owned by "Arabs," but that it does make a difference that it specifically involves the UAE. You remind us that two of the conspirators who were actually involved in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center were directly linked to the UAE. You say that you would rather have a company owned by the government of Iraq purchasing the port operating concern than a company owned by UAE or Saudi Arabia. After all, the record is clear that no one in Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack on the US. There were no weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons in Iraq either. And Saddam Hussein had been successful in stifling any influence by Al Qaida in Iraq prior to the US invasion.
You also argue that if the reason for fighting in Iraq is to engage pockets or terrorist away from US shores in order to prevent having to combat them at home, that it does not make sense to establish organizations in major US ports that are easily subject to infiltration and which allow terrorist cells and organizations to set up convenient beach heads on US soil. I would agree that your argument has some plausible merit.
But it does not out weigh the confidence we should place in our President. After all, would a financial partner who has diverted millions of dollars into the family coffers of the Bush family turn around and double cross his good and faithful partner of many years? That is so unlikely after GW has just expended a large amount of political capital to assure the UAE company nearly monopolistic control over the trade through major ports of this country. GW may talk about saving lives and protecting national interest, but what he clearly worships more than anything is money and loyalty. Just think about it! When people were starving and dying after Katrina struck, who stepped up and awarded millions of dollars in no bid contracts to Halliburton to perform wasteful and useless tasks at extreme profit. That's money and loyalty. And when you consider that Halliburton was under investigation for gross fraud and overcharging for similar types of contracts in Iraq, you have to admit that GW has conviction. George knows his friends alright.
So when George tells us that he has been assured by his loyal friends in the government of Dubai and the UAE that takeover of major US ports poses no risk to "national security," especially when that assurance is backed up by VERY fat bank accounts of the Bush family in the Bank of Houston [as well as a number of offshore accounts], who are we to second guess our Commander in Chief? He hasn't been wrong yet, ...or has he?
[If you'll excuse me, I have to go now. I have my broker on the phone about selling my property in New York and Philadelphia and reinvesting in new locations as far away from major ports as possible. Really, just a coincidence...]
Before you get in an uproar, and work yourself into an apoplectic fit over the seeming incongruity, let's review the situation. The President claims that he needs to trample and curtail civil rights and basic Democratic freedoms in the interests of protecting "National Security." He declares that neither the Congress nor the Constitution has the authority to limit his perogatives in his quest, if protecting National Security is his goal. The end justifies any means he may conceive or manufacture. He has established a new Cabinet level Agency for "Homeland Security" to make sure that federal policy and executive initiatives or action are consistent with protecting national security and protecting Americans. Goodness! I almost feel better about giving up my Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights, knowing that I can go to sleep each night with the comfort that only the FBI, the CIA or some federal agent will storm my bedroom and take me hostage. At least it will not be some foreign "terrorist." Good old GW is at the ready and ever vigilant [except perhaps whenever an emergency like 9/11 or Katrina strikes after the President had significant prior warning, but everybody makes some mistakes, right?]
Now we are told that GW has carefully reviewed the decision to transfer control of major US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. And some of you question the decision. Perhaps you are just being Arabophobic? After all, the Bush family has had financial dealings and strong financial ties to the UAE for many years and why should we not trust the Bush family to look out for the best interests of the nation? We should not be ready to reject a very profitable deal just because the transaction involves Arabs.
But you argue that your objections really are not based upon the fact that the company is owned by "Arabs," but that it does make a difference that it specifically involves the UAE. You remind us that two of the conspirators who were actually involved in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center were directly linked to the UAE. You say that you would rather have a company owned by the government of Iraq purchasing the port operating concern than a company owned by UAE or Saudi Arabia. After all, the record is clear that no one in Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack on the US. There were no weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons in Iraq either. And Saddam Hussein had been successful in stifling any influence by Al Qaida in Iraq prior to the US invasion.
You also argue that if the reason for fighting in Iraq is to engage pockets or terrorist away from US shores in order to prevent having to combat them at home, that it does not make sense to establish organizations in major US ports that are easily subject to infiltration and which allow terrorist cells and organizations to set up convenient beach heads on US soil. I would agree that your argument has some plausible merit.
But it does not out weigh the confidence we should place in our President. After all, would a financial partner who has diverted millions of dollars into the family coffers of the Bush family turn around and double cross his good and faithful partner of many years? That is so unlikely after GW has just expended a large amount of political capital to assure the UAE company nearly monopolistic control over the trade through major ports of this country. GW may talk about saving lives and protecting national interest, but what he clearly worships more than anything is money and loyalty. Just think about it! When people were starving and dying after Katrina struck, who stepped up and awarded millions of dollars in no bid contracts to Halliburton to perform wasteful and useless tasks at extreme profit. That's money and loyalty. And when you consider that Halliburton was under investigation for gross fraud and overcharging for similar types of contracts in Iraq, you have to admit that GW has conviction. George knows his friends alright.
So when George tells us that he has been assured by his loyal friends in the government of Dubai and the UAE that takeover of major US ports poses no risk to "national security," especially when that assurance is backed up by VERY fat bank accounts of the Bush family in the Bank of Houston [as well as a number of offshore accounts], who are we to second guess our Commander in Chief? He hasn't been wrong yet, ...or has he?
[If you'll excuse me, I have to go now. I have my broker on the phone about selling my property in New York and Philadelphia and reinvesting in new locations as far away from major ports as possible. Really, just a coincidence...]
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Tight Lips Sink Elephants - GOP worries over Cheney silence
Given the extreme secretive nature of the Bush administration, except when they seek to push propaganda, it is not surprising that there has been no urgency to inform the public of the details of the shooting incident at the Texas Armstrong Ranch. Cheney, in particular, prefers to be a backroom politician, emerging from cover only temporarily to snipe at political enemies and critics. But the callous silence surrounding the shooting of his supposed pal and big time GOP contributor smacks of something more. The 20 hour delay in even getting word out to local press, when cell phones and command post equipment was readily at hand, suggests that there was a need to cover up certain facts and present a story with enough "truthiness" to be palatable to the media and the public.
The White House initial spin of blaming Whittington, the victim for the shooting accident was not only cruel, but politically dangerous. If it was to be portrayed as an "accident," then why spin it as anyone's fault? The logical answer is to shift blame from the vice president. To pose a likely scenario, and yes this is speculation - but educated guesses have some merit, Cheney and his hunting buddies had been drinking and neither Cheney nor Whittington was alert enough to pay full attention to what they were doing. Cheney saw movement in the brush and turned and fired his shotgun at the movement. Every hunter knows that you are supposed to look carefully and aim before pulling the trigger. Trying to place the blame upon Whittington is simply cruel and dishonest. The gun did not "go off" accidentally, Cheney deliberately pulled the trigger.
No secret service personnel was going to stop Cheney from hoisting a few, or from going out on the hunting escapade. Hunting accidents of this type do happen frequently, but usually when drinking has been involved. As a result, the incident was kept quiet long enough for blood alcohol levels to dissipate. Had local authorities been called in to investigate, as would happen for a typical citizen, standard procedures would have required screening to see if alcohol consumption was a contributing factor. There would have been an independent investigative reference to the scene and a check on the extent to which the vice president and his office could fabricate a story. As it now stands, the GOP and Cheney will have a large debt to repay to Whittington to keep him quiet about the actual events out on the Armstrong Ranch last Saturday. This story will be up to Cheney's staff [or perhaps ultimatel a federal prosecutor] to reveal. Cheney can be thankful that the incident did not happen in Ronnie Earle's bailiwick.
Cheney does not believe that he is answerable to the law or to the American people. And we know what he does to people who challenge him or disagree with his distorted view of the world and himself. If Whittington decides to publicly tell the truth about the incident, the shooting he got will seem like a Swedish Massage compared to the treatment Cheney will deliver.
The White House initial spin of blaming Whittington, the victim for the shooting accident was not only cruel, but politically dangerous. If it was to be portrayed as an "accident," then why spin it as anyone's fault? The logical answer is to shift blame from the vice president. To pose a likely scenario, and yes this is speculation - but educated guesses have some merit, Cheney and his hunting buddies had been drinking and neither Cheney nor Whittington was alert enough to pay full attention to what they were doing. Cheney saw movement in the brush and turned and fired his shotgun at the movement. Every hunter knows that you are supposed to look carefully and aim before pulling the trigger. Trying to place the blame upon Whittington is simply cruel and dishonest. The gun did not "go off" accidentally, Cheney deliberately pulled the trigger.
No secret service personnel was going to stop Cheney from hoisting a few, or from going out on the hunting escapade. Hunting accidents of this type do happen frequently, but usually when drinking has been involved. As a result, the incident was kept quiet long enough for blood alcohol levels to dissipate. Had local authorities been called in to investigate, as would happen for a typical citizen, standard procedures would have required screening to see if alcohol consumption was a contributing factor. There would have been an independent investigative reference to the scene and a check on the extent to which the vice president and his office could fabricate a story. As it now stands, the GOP and Cheney will have a large debt to repay to Whittington to keep him quiet about the actual events out on the Armstrong Ranch last Saturday. This story will be up to Cheney's staff [or perhaps ultimatel a federal prosecutor] to reveal. Cheney can be thankful that the incident did not happen in Ronnie Earle's bailiwick.
Cheney does not believe that he is answerable to the law or to the American people. And we know what he does to people who challenge him or disagree with his distorted view of the world and himself. If Whittington decides to publicly tell the truth about the incident, the shooting he got will seem like a Swedish Massage compared to the treatment Cheney will deliver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)