Nearly a decade ago, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) stood alone as the Senate's constitutional conscience. Casting the only dissenting vote against passage of the PATRIOT Act in 2001, he was powerless to stop an opportunistic power grab by neo-conservatives who had long sought, well before the tragedy of 9-11, to expand our government's reach into the lives of law-abiding Americans.
Today, the draconian authorities foisted on an unsuspecting public by the PATRIOT Act once again place the Constitution in the cross-hairs of a complacent Congress, acquiescing to another administration whose political agenda lies at conspicuous odds with its leader's oath to defend the Constitution.
Read More...
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
About Miranda Rights/Richard Reid/Newt Gingrich/Abdulmutallab
There has recently been a flap over Newt Gingrich's Daily Show interview (and subsequent comments, along with others by various Republicans) related to the Obama administration's handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man who attempted to blow his underwear up on a flight to Detroit. The GOP criticism is basically that the Obama administration read Miranda rights to Abdulmutallab and generally treated him like he was an American citizen. They argue that this is completely unacceptable behavior...he's a foreign terrorist, and shouldn't get the benefits of our legal system. Stewart raised the issue of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, with Gingrich - Reid was also read his Miranda rights and largely treated within the rules of the U.S legal system. Gingrich's response was that Reid was a U.S. citizen - other Republicans have been making this point as well. Of course, this is not true at all - Reid was a British national. The left has been arguing that this is proof of hypocrisy - Abdulmutallab basically was treated like Reid, but the GOP didn't go after President Bush. This is, of course, entirely true, but I think we're missing the bigger point. We got good intelligence from Abdulmutallab. Why isn't this the central point of discussion?Yeah, look, today's Republican party is a hypocritical one, and I think it is important to point this out (note: I think the same standard applies to the Democrats, too - I'm an equal hypocrisy hater). But why is this the central point of discussion? The Abdulmutallab case is really a testament to the effectiveness of normal legal practices. Gingrich talked about how the Obama administration's treatment of Abdulmutallab was wrong because he's not a U.S. citizen and because it makes America less safe. Well, that last point is kind of the crux of the argument, and the one we really should focus on. Apparently, the US got a lot of useful intel from Abdulmutallab, Mirandized and all. Is there reason to believe treating him more harshly, say, waterboarding, would have gotten us more info? We've already discussed this on the Spoon here, and here, and, at the very least, we don't see that being likely. We're not exactly going out a limb with that view. A hell of a lot of experts agree that harsh interrogation techniques don't get you good information. So, the flap over treating Abdulmutallab "lightly" seems to be problematic in that, by making such an argument, the GOP leaves itself open to being rightly accused of pushing harder interrogation to appear tougher, while actually make us LESS SAFE. You know, because harsher interrogation might actually get us less intelligence. Now, if only that point could be discussed more often, so as to finally kill this dangerous tough-guy debate. And by the way, the "tough-guy" lawmakers who want harsher interrogation look like kids that got beat up for lunch money growing up. So, you know, just throw a punch at them every now and then. Like calling them out for their discourse on this that makes America less safe.
Read More...
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Thank you, Howard
"Everything we do is important. Every little thing we do, every picket line we walk on, every letter we write, every act of civil disobedience we engage in, any recruiter that we talk to, any parent that we talk to, any GI that we talk to, any young person that we talk to, anything we do in class, outside of class, everything we do in the direction of a different world is important, even though at the moment they seem futile, because that’s how change comes about. Change comes about when millions of people do little things, which at certain points in history come together, and then something good and something important happens." - Howard Zinn, 1922-2010.There are a lot of really beautiful and thoughtful tributes to the People's historian. We here at the Spoon just wanted to offer our profound thanks to Howard Zinn for everything he did. He taught us about empathy. He taught us about connecting to others, learning from them, and organizing with them for a more just world. He taught us how important each thing each one of us does is, since we never really know what actions end up causing major policy shifts.
On a personal level, I was fortunate enough to get to know him while in college, and it changed my life. I went from a science kid to a politics kid. I went from being (sort of) interested in biochemistry and physiology to organizing on welfare reform, poverty, Iraq sanctions, and eventually, health care policy and foreign policy. His friendship literally transformed my life, and his words have done the same for thousands, if not millions, of others. While many call him a "radical" or "leftist" historian, I dispute those terms - he simply offered the voices of those history had conveniently left out. As a former WWII bombadier, he learned to detest war, knowing that innocent civilians will always bear the brunt of any conflict. As a former shipyard laborer and professor at Spelman college during the Civil Rights movement, he found poverty and racism unacceptable and things worth fighting against at all times. Howard spoke for the marginalized at all times because he believed all people deserve the opportunity to participate in politics. There is nothing leftist or radical about that. As Bob Herbert said, Howard being veiwed as a radical reflected more about about our society than him.
I am very happy he got to see The People Speak finally make it to TV - he told a few of us his initial thoughts about turning A People's History of the United States into a documentary of sorts about a decade ago. The show got a lot of great reviews, and was seen by many, including scores of people who had never read or heard of Zinn before. Naomi Klein is right...there has been a revival of interest in Howard Zinn the past few years (he never really went out of fashion, but yeah, definitely increased interest lately). He has now left us, but so long as we keep fighting for the things he did, he'll always be close by. After all, he was one of us.
Rest in peace, my friend.
Read More...
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Ever heard of wikileaks.com?
For those not aware of the grassroots movement, www.wikileaks.com, I wanted to bring it to your attention. At the very least, their fundamental mission seems to address an interesting and seldom-discussed concern: as the Internet becomes a more and more influential force, whose laws govern the power of this influence? Google vs. China anyone?
Read More...
Friday, January 22, 2010
Plutocracy, Complacency, and Taxes
I am growing ever more fearful of the plutocracy that is ravaging the spirit of my country and the pride of my people. Much like a cancer that has quietly metastasized undetected for so long that even chemotherapy is an unfeasible option (perhaps a lack of health insurance prevented preventative check-ups—God forbid they pay out of pocket in time to learn they cannot afford to pay for treatment!), I believe the governing system of America is so inflicted and full, not so much of corruption (although that is also true), as much as incoherent and therefore unenforceable rules and regulations, that it will inevitably implode and take the country--if not the world--with it. (Please note, as someone who has experienced the horror of watching a loved one succumb to cancer that went undetected until it reached stage-4, I am aware of the implications of this analogy.)
The intensity of economic inequality that has swept America and enslaved the ethos of its people is such that I no longer believe that a gradual structural revamping of the system is possible; the only way out of this mess is to hit the reset button or wait for nature to do it for us. What, exactly, it means to “hit the reset button” is surely a question worthy of significant attention and discussion, but suffice it for the purposes of this blog entry to say that some kind of major and immediate structural change—regulatory or not—resulting in a major redistribution of a significant portion of the wealth of the top 5% of Americans to the remaining 95% is necessary or we are doomed to suffer a civil war, another third world war, or both.
Before I enter into an endless filibuster with those who think they represent (or some day will)—and therefore feel the need to defend—the top 5%, permit me a few more moments of your time. First off, by the laws of probability, you most likely do not and never will represent the top 5%. Truly, one of the greatest illusions propagated by American plutocracy during the past 50 years, is the Reaganomatic three-class system. Apart from the fact that “upper class” sounds oh so much better than “rich” and “lower class” better than poor (albeit still a denigrating term), the fact of the matter is that socially, economically, and thus residentially, American society is divided and subdivided so completely and thoroughly that one can hardly maintain candid awareness of their place within it. I believe many individuals actually prefer it this way; as it is more palatable to trade away our consciousness than to accept that within the context of the actual, far more variegated, stratosphere in which we exist, the majority of us are really pretty damn far from the top, not “2nd best”, as our acceptance of “middle class” status would have us believe or even “upper-middle class.” There is plenty written on this subject so I defer to the Ackerman’s of the world for those that want to isolate discussion to Reaganomics. As for me, I am passed that as I think it is more pertinent to note that the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 23 years in the year 2000 and has been maintained at such a level for 9 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, but only because its share of income has risen faster. This painful fact is only possible because over the past hundred years this group has had their taxes gradually lowered from 70% in the 1920’s to the current rate of 35% (I’m ignoring of course the Eisenhower time period in which they had a 90% tax rate because of the need to fund the war). [More on this topic can be found at: www.heritage.org as well as the IRS's income-statistics website.] The compounding impact of the increased wealth of the top 1% (you can use 5% if you prefer) creates an increasingly unfair playing field as these extremely wealthy individuals are provided with much lower risk opportunities to multiply their free and available money that unlike the “middle class” is not being tied up by liabilities connected to basic necessities. Yet, our regulators have not only accommodated the wealthy (forget for a moment that many of them belong to this privileged group), they have actually made it exponentially easier to compound their wealth.
It is important to note here that the word “wealth” is often confused with “income.” As noted in Wikipedia: “These two terms describe different but related things. Wealth consists of those items of economic value that an individual owns, while income is an inflow of items of economic value. The relation between wealth, income, and expenses is:
change of wealth = income − expenses
A common mistake made by people embarking on a research project to determine the distribution of wealth is to use statistical data of income to describe the distribution of wealth. The distribution of income is substantially different from the distribution of wealth. According to the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, "the world distribution of wealth is much more unequal than that of income.
Two important points need to be extracted and highlighted here: first, the wealthy do not grow wealth-y by spending their money, they do so by hording it or by having such a disproportionately large income compared to that of the rest of the individuals in society that they cannot spend it all without gratuitous effort; second, the more wealth an individual has sitting in appreciating assets, especially those that pay dividends, the more powerful the compounding effect of such wealth becomes, allowing such an individual to take from the economy without producing an equivalent worth of production.
Thus, without voluntarily giving back, or being compelled to give back (via taxes for instance) an amount of that money proportional to the amount of energy that created it, the said wealthy person is essentially sucking net value and currency flow from the economy, thus defeating the two purposes of using a currency system in lieu of a bartering system, which was intended to facilitate the transfer of value (and individuals net production to society) over space and time. Does that mean that we should get rid of interest rates and capitalism? Absolutely not! I have a retirement account and I completely agree that those who have the prudence and gumption to endure short-term pain for long-term gain (my definition of “investing”) should be rewarded. What that individual is giving up (and it is not merely the unit value of the money, but the comforts that such money could have provided) allows for multiplied production. At some point, however, an individual’s wealth is so great that he endures no pain whatsoever, and hence could not possibly buy any further reasonable comforts, yet he is rewarded as if he has given up an incredible amount for the good of society.
Apart from forcing the wealthy individual to give back, what else can be done to return balance to the economy? We could cut expenses. Certainly excessive and unnecessary public spending should be avoided as it ultimately causes the same concern as the previously described super wealthy individual, the money controlled by the government is granted to them under the pretense that if combined it will be able to provide a quality of life enhancement that in general is greater than the pain caused by taking it from the individuals for whom it belonged.
I can already hear someone in the back of the room yelling, that’s exactly why the wealthiest 5% should not have to pay their money into the pot since they do not utilize public resources. Such a skewed perspective is how we got to this point to begin with. Lloyd Blankfein may never need to use the Metrorail system, but 95% of the persons that are somehow connected to the success of the company he runs do (think pension funds) and will continue to depend on public investment. Out of sight out of mind, I guess.
We live in a society in which everyone is convinced of two seemingly connected but really very separate things: one can achieve anything in this world if one wants it badly enough; and the wealth that one has is the result of one's hard work--hence, you’ve earned it. One does not magically result in the other, especially when one thinks of, say, Paris Hilton. Such ideologies allow the wealthy to feel like they are entitled to the disproportionately easy living they have and the un-wealthy believe that the energy they are transferring to the wealthy is just part of the due-diligence process at the end of which they will some day enjoy the benefits of a role reversal. The misdirection lies in the fact that very, very, seldom, if ever, will roles actually be reversed. Sure, it is quite likely that our un-wealthy worker will one day meet another hardworking individual with even less wealth than he, but that does not mean that roles have been reversed. The flow of real wealth, the flow of real power and of economic value in America is for the most part unidirectional and exponential. Furthermore, since it is customary to inherit one’s family wealth, it is not at all obligatory for an individual to produce their wealth’s worth of production.
Continued denial of the state of disequilibrium in our country will only bring us to an ever more painful inevitability. What happens when the masses stop believing? Worse, what happens when those who stop believing begin to mobilize? A friend of mine recently told me that he does not believe in recessions, that they are merely the result of people resting on their laurels after a period of time in which things came to easy. He went on to say how he was at Target and was waiting in line for so long (because there weren't enough employees) that he just put his stuff down and left. He said, on the way out he saw a "we're hiring sign" on the door and continued with a smugness that made me question if he was the same person I played t-ball with as a kid 25 years ago. All I could think to say to him was "the other possibility is that the cost of living has increased so quickly relative to wages that in the end it's not worth working at all." He was disgusted with my response, and as someone who has held multiple simultaneous jobs for most of my life, I wasn't sure I believed the words coming out of my own mouth. Then my 23-year old brother called me to tell me he had quit his job because after subtracting the cost of commute (two hours a day), taxes, and other basic job-related expenses he was working for $4.90 an hour. How can anyone believe in the "American Dream" when they work their ass off for $4.90/hr during one of the worst recessions in history while the front page of the newspaper reads: Goldman Sachs’ profit and remuneration soars?
Read More...
The intensity of economic inequality that has swept America and enslaved the ethos of its people is such that I no longer believe that a gradual structural revamping of the system is possible; the only way out of this mess is to hit the reset button or wait for nature to do it for us. What, exactly, it means to “hit the reset button” is surely a question worthy of significant attention and discussion, but suffice it for the purposes of this blog entry to say that some kind of major and immediate structural change—regulatory or not—resulting in a major redistribution of a significant portion of the wealth of the top 5% of Americans to the remaining 95% is necessary or we are doomed to suffer a civil war, another third world war, or both.
Before I enter into an endless filibuster with those who think they represent (or some day will)—and therefore feel the need to defend—the top 5%, permit me a few more moments of your time. First off, by the laws of probability, you most likely do not and never will represent the top 5%. Truly, one of the greatest illusions propagated by American plutocracy during the past 50 years, is the Reaganomatic three-class system. Apart from the fact that “upper class” sounds oh so much better than “rich” and “lower class” better than poor (albeit still a denigrating term), the fact of the matter is that socially, economically, and thus residentially, American society is divided and subdivided so completely and thoroughly that one can hardly maintain candid awareness of their place within it. I believe many individuals actually prefer it this way; as it is more palatable to trade away our consciousness than to accept that within the context of the actual, far more variegated, stratosphere in which we exist, the majority of us are really pretty damn far from the top, not “2nd best”, as our acceptance of “middle class” status would have us believe or even “upper-middle class.” There is plenty written on this subject so I defer to the Ackerman’s of the world for those that want to isolate discussion to Reaganomics. As for me, I am passed that as I think it is more pertinent to note that the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 23 years in the year 2000 and has been maintained at such a level for 9 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, but only because its share of income has risen faster. This painful fact is only possible because over the past hundred years this group has had their taxes gradually lowered from 70% in the 1920’s to the current rate of 35% (I’m ignoring of course the Eisenhower time period in which they had a 90% tax rate because of the need to fund the war). [More on this topic can be found at: www.heritage.org as well as the IRS's income-statistics website.] The compounding impact of the increased wealth of the top 1% (you can use 5% if you prefer) creates an increasingly unfair playing field as these extremely wealthy individuals are provided with much lower risk opportunities to multiply their free and available money that unlike the “middle class” is not being tied up by liabilities connected to basic necessities. Yet, our regulators have not only accommodated the wealthy (forget for a moment that many of them belong to this privileged group), they have actually made it exponentially easier to compound their wealth.
It is important to note here that the word “wealth” is often confused with “income.” As noted in Wikipedia: “These two terms describe different but related things. Wealth consists of those items of economic value that an individual owns, while income is an inflow of items of economic value. The relation between wealth, income, and expenses is:
change of wealth = income − expenses
A common mistake made by people embarking on a research project to determine the distribution of wealth is to use statistical data of income to describe the distribution of wealth. The distribution of income is substantially different from the distribution of wealth. According to the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, "the world distribution of wealth is much more unequal than that of income.
Two important points need to be extracted and highlighted here: first, the wealthy do not grow wealth-y by spending their money, they do so by hording it or by having such a disproportionately large income compared to that of the rest of the individuals in society that they cannot spend it all without gratuitous effort; second, the more wealth an individual has sitting in appreciating assets, especially those that pay dividends, the more powerful the compounding effect of such wealth becomes, allowing such an individual to take from the economy without producing an equivalent worth of production.
Thus, without voluntarily giving back, or being compelled to give back (via taxes for instance) an amount of that money proportional to the amount of energy that created it, the said wealthy person is essentially sucking net value and currency flow from the economy, thus defeating the two purposes of using a currency system in lieu of a bartering system, which was intended to facilitate the transfer of value (and individuals net production to society) over space and time. Does that mean that we should get rid of interest rates and capitalism? Absolutely not! I have a retirement account and I completely agree that those who have the prudence and gumption to endure short-term pain for long-term gain (my definition of “investing”) should be rewarded. What that individual is giving up (and it is not merely the unit value of the money, but the comforts that such money could have provided) allows for multiplied production. At some point, however, an individual’s wealth is so great that he endures no pain whatsoever, and hence could not possibly buy any further reasonable comforts, yet he is rewarded as if he has given up an incredible amount for the good of society.
Apart from forcing the wealthy individual to give back, what else can be done to return balance to the economy? We could cut expenses. Certainly excessive and unnecessary public spending should be avoided as it ultimately causes the same concern as the previously described super wealthy individual, the money controlled by the government is granted to them under the pretense that if combined it will be able to provide a quality of life enhancement that in general is greater than the pain caused by taking it from the individuals for whom it belonged.
I can already hear someone in the back of the room yelling, that’s exactly why the wealthiest 5% should not have to pay their money into the pot since they do not utilize public resources. Such a skewed perspective is how we got to this point to begin with. Lloyd Blankfein may never need to use the Metrorail system, but 95% of the persons that are somehow connected to the success of the company he runs do (think pension funds) and will continue to depend on public investment. Out of sight out of mind, I guess.
We live in a society in which everyone is convinced of two seemingly connected but really very separate things: one can achieve anything in this world if one wants it badly enough; and the wealth that one has is the result of one's hard work--hence, you’ve earned it. One does not magically result in the other, especially when one thinks of, say, Paris Hilton. Such ideologies allow the wealthy to feel like they are entitled to the disproportionately easy living they have and the un-wealthy believe that the energy they are transferring to the wealthy is just part of the due-diligence process at the end of which they will some day enjoy the benefits of a role reversal. The misdirection lies in the fact that very, very, seldom, if ever, will roles actually be reversed. Sure, it is quite likely that our un-wealthy worker will one day meet another hardworking individual with even less wealth than he, but that does not mean that roles have been reversed. The flow of real wealth, the flow of real power and of economic value in America is for the most part unidirectional and exponential. Furthermore, since it is customary to inherit one’s family wealth, it is not at all obligatory for an individual to produce their wealth’s worth of production.
Continued denial of the state of disequilibrium in our country will only bring us to an ever more painful inevitability. What happens when the masses stop believing? Worse, what happens when those who stop believing begin to mobilize? A friend of mine recently told me that he does not believe in recessions, that they are merely the result of people resting on their laurels after a period of time in which things came to easy. He went on to say how he was at Target and was waiting in line for so long (because there weren't enough employees) that he just put his stuff down and left. He said, on the way out he saw a "we're hiring sign" on the door and continued with a smugness that made me question if he was the same person I played t-ball with as a kid 25 years ago. All I could think to say to him was "the other possibility is that the cost of living has increased so quickly relative to wages that in the end it's not worth working at all." He was disgusted with my response, and as someone who has held multiple simultaneous jobs for most of my life, I wasn't sure I believed the words coming out of my own mouth. Then my 23-year old brother called me to tell me he had quit his job because after subtracting the cost of commute (two hours a day), taxes, and other basic job-related expenses he was working for $4.90 an hour. How can anyone believe in the "American Dream" when they work their ass off for $4.90/hr during one of the worst recessions in history while the front page of the newspaper reads: Goldman Sachs’ profit and remuneration soars?
Read More...
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Haiti in Context: History
Note: This is a Partner Post to Haiti in Context: Voices. Please check out both. They represent some of the best information I've seen on Haiti that's emerged over the past few days.
It has been a tough 4 days for Haiti and its Diaspora but from struggle emerges strength. I first want to say I am every renewed by the way I've seen folks in my own personal network and internationally begin to pull together for Haiti. I am clear that what we are doing now is small and late, but there is nothing like watching community form before your eyes and working together. Political differences become supplanted in the midst of crisis and when heavy lifting is occurring. A number of people have reached out to me regarding Haiti and the context surrounding the country that would allow an earthquake to do so much damage. In reality, like most "natural disasters" there are very human causes that lead to such catastrophic consequences. I have assembled some of the best writing I've seen on the context and figured I'd let you read the experts words moreso than mine.
Alternet covers the emergence of Haiti and the deep connections between the United States, Haiti and the globe:
However, more than two centuries ago, Haiti represented one of the most important neighbors of the new American Republic and played a central role in enabling the United States to expand westward. If not for Haiti, the course of U.S. history could have been very different, with the United States possibly never expanding much beyond the Appalachian Mountains.
Read More
The Socialist Worker has a good article on the policies that helped produces deep issues of political and economic infrastructure.
"The media coverage of the earthquake is marked by an almost complete divorce of the disaster from the social and political history of Haiti," Canadian Haiti solidarity activist Yves Engler said in an interview. "They repeatedly state that the government was completely unprepared to deal with the crisis. This is true. But they left out why."
To understand these facts, we have to look at a second fault line--U.S. imperial policy toward Haiti. The U.S. government, the UN, and other powers have aided the Haitian elite in subjecting the country to neoliberal economic plans that have impoverished the masses, deforested the land, wrecked the infrastructure and incapacitated the government.
Read More
Democracy Now features a good discussion of how US Policy has shaped the "underdeveloped" state that Haiti was in prior to the Earthquake
And they got there because they or their parents or grandparents were pushed out of Haiti’s countryside, where most Haitians used to live. And they were pushed out of there by policies thirty years ago, when it was decided by the international experts that Haiti’s economic salvation lay in assembly manufacture plants. And in order to advance that, it was decided that Haiti needed to have a captive labor force in the cities. So a whole bunch of aid policies, trade policies and political policies were implemented, designed to move people from the countryside to places like Martissant and the hills—hillsides that we’ve seen in those photos.
Watch the video here or read the transcript beneath the video.
Make sure to check out the piece in the UK Guardian by Peter Hallward on OUR ROLE in the creation of the Haiti we know today. And the interview on Democracy Now with Randall Robinson, founder of TransAfrica, who explains the sick irony in the appeal to George Bush for assistance.
I certainly acknowledge there is a lot to read and watch there but while the media concentrates on framing this as a unconscionable "natural disaster" as if Haiti is perpetually "bad luck" there needs to be a deeper conversation about Ayiti (Haiti) and her people. The strength and resilience that formed Haiti will be what allow it to return to being the Pearl of the liberated African Diaspora. Please read the partner post to this Haiti in Context: Voices which capture the voices of the people.
*please pardon me for not citing where all these pieces came from. Folks have forwarded me so many things. Charge it to my head not my heart.
Read More...
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Help Haiti Now
I write this post with a heavy heart for the people of Haiti and its Diaspora. As you likely well know by now Port-au-Prince, the nation's capital was hit with a 7.0 earthquake and many sizable aftershocks. Given that Haiti is the most impoverished nation in the Western Hemisphere, the consequences of this "natural disaster" are far beyond what many of us can conceive. I see this as a time for us to join in support in spiritual, emotional, physical and economic ways.Beneath I have included some immediate ways that you can donate and offer aid from abroad. I have opted for donating with AmeriCares because of their long standing relationship with relief work in Haiti, their four star ranking from charity navigator, and their expertise/infrastructure in similar crises. In times of crisis, relief is needed and after watching the American Red Cross stumble, squander and misappropriate funds from Katrina Relief I decided to exercise a greater degree of caution with my donations. No matter where you chose to donate, God willing, some help will be given. So please give freely so that we can help our dear brothers and sisters of Haiti.
Partners in Health (comes highly recommended)
Doctors without Borders
Yele (Wyclef's Organization - this is a smaller org and has been getting a lot of hits and is struggling with their website and possibly other matters)
American Red Cross
MercyCorps
Unicef
An additional list of options here and a great post with options from South Side Scholar here.
While I am not Haitian (the francophone name L'Heureux is just a given name from my mother) I feel a special kindredness with our brothers and sisters there. While the poverty and squalor are often concentrated on, Haiti remains our first liberated republic which was won through struggle. Now is the time to practice what Dr. John Henrik-Clarke preached, "PanAfricanism or Perish." Let's move from ideology and voyeurism to activism and engagement.
Special thanks to @alone_cuzzo @aisha1908 @saigrundy @Ssidescholar Read More...
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Double Standards: How Our Lawlessness Strengthens Our Enemies
We have failed to even investigate torturers, yet we have prosecuted and imprisoned millions for lesser offenses. And we allow mass murderers the benefit of constitutional rights that we deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Until policymakers examine and fix these double standards, they will continue to undermine our foreign policy, as well as our domestic criminal justice system.
We now know that the Bush administration's torture policies proved horrendously counterproductive, in more ways than one: they eroded our allies' trust, undermined the ability of our non-state supporters to credibly defend our goodwill, generated bad intelligence in the form of forced—and predictably false—confessions, and undermined the morale of the professional interrogators who resisted their illegal (and idiotic) orders.
Worse yet, torture drove recruits into the arms of our enemies. According to veteran interrogators from multiple armed services, as well as the FBI, the number one reason militants flocked to Iraq was U.S. torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Force Base, CIA black sites, and the various foreign countries to which we continue to outsource torture through the extraordinary rendition program.
It was galling enough when, last year, all three branches of the federal government colluded to sweep evidence of torture under the rug. Confronted by thousands of abusive acts depicted in photos—some as severe as outright rape—DC united to protect its own. Acting at the behest of the CIA's discredited leadership, the administration lobbied Congress to amend a federal statute to grant the Defense Department an extraordinary authority to hide specific evidence of its own criminal trail, and the Supreme Court signed off on the deal.
Now, the double standard has come full circle...twice.
The first has plagued the Obama administration throughout its first year in office, and undermined the legitimacy of both its foreign policy, as well as our criminal justice system. On the one hand, people whose criminality stands hidden in plain sight—the former officials who unapologetically authorized torture, like Cheney, Addington, Bybee, and Yoo—remain free of even investigation, let alone prosecution. On the other hand, people of color face relentless prosecution and vicious penalties for non-violent offenses like drug possession, gambling, or even moving violations.
The second double standard is more recent, equally troubling, and potentially more problematic going forward. On the one hand, charges facing mercenaries apparently guilty of senselessly murdering nearly 20 Iraqis (in a bloody incident that touched off one of the most violent episodes of our six-year occupation) were dismissed by a federal district court on Thursday because the prosecution relied on statements given under promises of immunity, and thereby violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
On the other hand, the kangaroo courts at Guantanamo Bay we call "military commissions" don't even pretend to honor such rights, or others that are far more fundamental. Mercenaries who commit mass murder with profound international consequences were afforded robust constitutional protections barring the use of statements made under promises of immunity. Meanwhile, detainees held by the U.S.—who have included humanitarian workers and tourists swept up with "the worst of the worse" in the race to find scapegoats—held no right to exclude statements coerced by outright torture until last fall. Nor have they (for the most part) enjoyed the opportunity to assert any rights in impartial courts.
Rather than federal courts defending the rights of the accused against potentially arbitrary imprisonment, detainees plead their cases before biased military commissions seeking pre-ordained outcomes. Rather than exclude "compelled statements" like those of the exonerated Blackwater contractors, the military commissions operating in Guantanamo Bay (and those proposed by some policy analysts as a model for an even broader scheme to operate within the U.S. after the facility in Cuba has closed) invite unreliable evidence routinely rejected by federal courts.
The U.S. military commander in Iraq attempted to explain Thursday's decision with the lame and inaccurate assertion that it offered "a lesson in the rule of law." What the dismissal of the Blackwater contractors' charges actually demonstrates is quite the opposite: law requires consistency, whereas our approach to accountability for war crimes smacks of opportunism.
The imperatives to defend our nation's historical legacy, or the universal moral principles condemning torture, or the international legal system and its bedrock prohibition on torture, have apparently proven too quiet for the deaf ear of Washington institutions. No one seems to care that although torture is an international crime, officials complicit in it remain highly rewarded and occupy prestigious positions in government and the private sector.
But these double standards carry a price, well beyond the reputation and moral standing our nation has already lost.
We wage, in the war on terror, a battle for hearts and minds. And there is no surer way to lose that battle than to violate the rights of detainees, while vindicating those of mercenaries--or to prosecute politically powerless people for innocuous behavior, while praising officials who violate our species' most fundamental shared commitments. Such blatant inconsistency is lost neither on our enemies, nor the billions of individuals targeted by their recruitment efforts.
Officials increasingly wring their heads over a supposed threat of domestic radicalization. It is ephemeral in the first instance, but the concern points to a generally legitimate fear: people of any kind who grow alienated could eventually turn violent.
Some Muslims in America may indeed be growing increasingly alienated—which may seem understandable in the face of policies like "special registration" round-ups, guilt by association, pervasive surveillance, the infiltration of religious institutions and entrapment by ex-convicts paid handsomely by taxpayers, intrusive interrogations and searches, private sector employment and housing discrimination, hate crimes, bullying, and racial and religious profiling by law enforcement authorities. But as a group, we have not renounced the social compact by taking up arms, to any greater extent than former servicemembers could be said to have been categorically radicalized by virtue of some supporting right-wing militia groups like the Aryan Nation.
But while Muslim Americans remain loyal to the U.S., people in other countries have no compact with us to renounce. And they have no reason to accept our military presence except the principles we purport to uphold...at the same time that we overtly violate them without apology.
The strategy that could most effectively hamstring violent extremism abroad is the same one that would most effectively stop disaffected youth in America from turning to violence: applying our principles equally and with consistency. Honestly investigating our nation's record, and prosecuting those individuals responsible for international crimes, would go a long way to reassure observers that we take justice seriously. And allowing the rights and laws in which we have long taken pride to also govern the trials of those we militarily detain would relieve concerns about U.S. human rights abuses, both among international critics and domestic observers targeted by militant propagandists.
At the moment, we continue to fail on each front. Despite the President's pretty words in Cairo last fall, we Americans committed to rule of law and the Constitution remain waiting for that "change [we] can believe in." And it's not just us: the world—and the people over whose hearts and minds we struggle—are watching, too.
Read More...
We now know that the Bush administration's torture policies proved horrendously counterproductive, in more ways than one: they eroded our allies' trust, undermined the ability of our non-state supporters to credibly defend our goodwill, generated bad intelligence in the form of forced—and predictably false—confessions, and undermined the morale of the professional interrogators who resisted their illegal (and idiotic) orders.
Worse yet, torture drove recruits into the arms of our enemies. According to veteran interrogators from multiple armed services, as well as the FBI, the number one reason militants flocked to Iraq was U.S. torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Force Base, CIA black sites, and the various foreign countries to which we continue to outsource torture through the extraordinary rendition program.
It was galling enough when, last year, all three branches of the federal government colluded to sweep evidence of torture under the rug. Confronted by thousands of abusive acts depicted in photos—some as severe as outright rape—DC united to protect its own. Acting at the behest of the CIA's discredited leadership, the administration lobbied Congress to amend a federal statute to grant the Defense Department an extraordinary authority to hide specific evidence of its own criminal trail, and the Supreme Court signed off on the deal.
Now, the double standard has come full circle...twice.
The first has plagued the Obama administration throughout its first year in office, and undermined the legitimacy of both its foreign policy, as well as our criminal justice system. On the one hand, people whose criminality stands hidden in plain sight—the former officials who unapologetically authorized torture, like Cheney, Addington, Bybee, and Yoo—remain free of even investigation, let alone prosecution. On the other hand, people of color face relentless prosecution and vicious penalties for non-violent offenses like drug possession, gambling, or even moving violations.
The second double standard is more recent, equally troubling, and potentially more problematic going forward. On the one hand, charges facing mercenaries apparently guilty of senselessly murdering nearly 20 Iraqis (in a bloody incident that touched off one of the most violent episodes of our six-year occupation) were dismissed by a federal district court on Thursday because the prosecution relied on statements given under promises of immunity, and thereby violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
On the other hand, the kangaroo courts at Guantanamo Bay we call "military commissions" don't even pretend to honor such rights, or others that are far more fundamental. Mercenaries who commit mass murder with profound international consequences were afforded robust constitutional protections barring the use of statements made under promises of immunity. Meanwhile, detainees held by the U.S.—who have included humanitarian workers and tourists swept up with "the worst of the worse" in the race to find scapegoats—held no right to exclude statements coerced by outright torture until last fall. Nor have they (for the most part) enjoyed the opportunity to assert any rights in impartial courts.
Rather than federal courts defending the rights of the accused against potentially arbitrary imprisonment, detainees plead their cases before biased military commissions seeking pre-ordained outcomes. Rather than exclude "compelled statements" like those of the exonerated Blackwater contractors, the military commissions operating in Guantanamo Bay (and those proposed by some policy analysts as a model for an even broader scheme to operate within the U.S. after the facility in Cuba has closed) invite unreliable evidence routinely rejected by federal courts.
The U.S. military commander in Iraq attempted to explain Thursday's decision with the lame and inaccurate assertion that it offered "a lesson in the rule of law." What the dismissal of the Blackwater contractors' charges actually demonstrates is quite the opposite: law requires consistency, whereas our approach to accountability for war crimes smacks of opportunism.
The imperatives to defend our nation's historical legacy, or the universal moral principles condemning torture, or the international legal system and its bedrock prohibition on torture, have apparently proven too quiet for the deaf ear of Washington institutions. No one seems to care that although torture is an international crime, officials complicit in it remain highly rewarded and occupy prestigious positions in government and the private sector.
But these double standards carry a price, well beyond the reputation and moral standing our nation has already lost.
We wage, in the war on terror, a battle for hearts and minds. And there is no surer way to lose that battle than to violate the rights of detainees, while vindicating those of mercenaries--or to prosecute politically powerless people for innocuous behavior, while praising officials who violate our species' most fundamental shared commitments. Such blatant inconsistency is lost neither on our enemies, nor the billions of individuals targeted by their recruitment efforts.
Officials increasingly wring their heads over a supposed threat of domestic radicalization. It is ephemeral in the first instance, but the concern points to a generally legitimate fear: people of any kind who grow alienated could eventually turn violent.
Some Muslims in America may indeed be growing increasingly alienated—which may seem understandable in the face of policies like "special registration" round-ups, guilt by association, pervasive surveillance, the infiltration of religious institutions and entrapment by ex-convicts paid handsomely by taxpayers, intrusive interrogations and searches, private sector employment and housing discrimination, hate crimes, bullying, and racial and religious profiling by law enforcement authorities. But as a group, we have not renounced the social compact by taking up arms, to any greater extent than former servicemembers could be said to have been categorically radicalized by virtue of some supporting right-wing militia groups like the Aryan Nation.
But while Muslim Americans remain loyal to the U.S., people in other countries have no compact with us to renounce. And they have no reason to accept our military presence except the principles we purport to uphold...at the same time that we overtly violate them without apology.
The strategy that could most effectively hamstring violent extremism abroad is the same one that would most effectively stop disaffected youth in America from turning to violence: applying our principles equally and with consistency. Honestly investigating our nation's record, and prosecuting those individuals responsible for international crimes, would go a long way to reassure observers that we take justice seriously. And allowing the rights and laws in which we have long taken pride to also govern the trials of those we militarily detain would relieve concerns about U.S. human rights abuses, both among international critics and domestic observers targeted by militant propagandists.
At the moment, we continue to fail on each front. Despite the President's pretty words in Cairo last fall, we Americans committed to rule of law and the Constitution remain waiting for that "change [we] can believe in." And it's not just us: the world—and the people over whose hearts and minds we struggle—are watching, too.
This article was originally published by Huffington Post.
Read More...
Monday, January 4, 2010
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
This is What "Democracy" Looks Like
So, like many of you, I said lots of words when I heard about Joe (fun fact - Stalin was also a Joe - coincidence??? I kid, I kid) Lieberman playing the role of Vito Corleone in this health care reform saga. I used phrases comedians would find offensive. I think I even made up a few new profanities. What can I say, I have many talents. Anyway, point being, the Obama administration pushed generally-spineless Harry Reid to kowtow (Obama kowtows like it's going out of style) to Lieberman and scrap the Medicare buy-in from the bill, which was already a substitute for the public option, which was a self-imposed compromise from Obama (love that hope, baby) away from a broader push for universal coverage or at least some regional-based private system that could maximize economies of scale and competition to get us the best coverage for the most people at the lowest cost. None of this is exactly shocking. Joe Lieberman is, well, a lot of words I won't write here. But none of them are good. And Obama is doing what I thought he would all along, except people seem to be more content with letting him do so than I had hoped. But this is bigger than health care. What the Lieberman affair speaks to is, very simply, the heart of democracy in America today.What do I mean by that? Simple. Lieberman was always going to push hard against any progressive health care reform. Not just because he's an ass - he is. Not just because he despises the left and wants to stick it to them - he does. Not because his soul is composed of arsenic and sulfuric acid - it is. (Okay...you got me...it isn't. Or I should say, I don't know that it isn't. Prove me wrong!) Take all of that away. You could argue against any of those points with some success. There's still one that is far more important than the others - unless Lieberman is, of course, the earthly version of El Diablo, which might be slightly worse. (Again, I kid. But seriously...can you prove he's not? Provide me the proof!) Joe Lieberman runs for office. In order to run for office, Joe Lieberman needs to get loot. Lots of it. It cost almost $6 million to win a Senate seat in 2008. The amount of TV ads, and the rising price of said ads, is part of the reason spending has increased. You know, the 7 ads you see over the course of one episode of Lost in October/November telling you candidate John Smith is actually a terrorist, kills babies himself, or will drop nuclear weapons on every country whose leaders so much as looks at him the wrong way. Ah, nostalgia.
So, Joe Lieberman needs to raise a lot of money in Connecticut. He probably doesn't have to raise that much most of the time, though. There is lots of research looking at entrenchment...so, once you get elected, you're much more likely to stay in office. Not only that, but Lieberman hasn't really faced too many serious challengers. Ned Lamont was, of course, an exception, and forced Lieberman to run as an independent/de-facto Republican to win his current term. But, he wants to have the money on hand because it's always good to have money on hand in politics. He wants to obliterate whoever his competition is with TV ads. He wants to outspend his rivals by a lot just to make sure he stays in office. So, he wants lots of money, both hard (from individuals) and soft (from PACs, etc.). Thus, he, like many of his colleagues in Congress, spend a hell of a lot of time fundraising, as opposed to, I don't know, governance. You can't raise millions of dollars that quickly, especially because their are limits on how much donors can give. Thus, it takes time to build up your treasure chest.
Now, who does Joe Lieberman get money from? A lot of sources. But he gets a lot from the health care industry. This includes pharmaceutical companies, the American Medical Association, etc. In other words, organizations that stand to lose a lot if any large-scale health care reform gets through. Lieberman gets a decent amount of money from them. Over his career, he ranks 10th among sitting senators in terms of industry contributions. This amounts to over $1 million - he ranked second in the Senate in contributions from the health insurance industry during his re-election campaign in 2006. Connecticut also happens to be home to a lot of big health insurance companies. Over 22,000 jobs in the state are directly in the health insurance industry. This is obviously problematic. This doesn't account for the loopholes, either. One way Congressional leaders get around campaign finance rules is by having the industry pay their spouses a lot of money through jobs and speaking gigs. Now, if they are highly qualified people for these positions, I get it. If they're not, you're basically filtering money to the candidate through a huge loophole. Lieberman has been getting slammed about this lately, as his wife pockets quite a lot of money from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries...several hundred thousand/year for, essentially, photo-ops. And that's after they actually got cleaner about it. So, yeah, lots of money. And the results seem to follow eerily well. Lieberman's flip flop on the Medicare buy-in came after the insurance industry slammed it.
Some argue that Lieberman's about-face has more to do with ideology - Lieberman did this to oppose the progressive left, something his comments do suggest. Maybe. But what's he going to say? The guys who bankroll me decided it wasn't good, so I did their bidding? At least the anti-liberal argument wins him some points among conservative democrats and Republicans. The admission of following the money could piss everyone off.
So, yeah, let's put the pitchforks down for a second and stop frothing about Lieberman. I hate his guts more than most of you. But his killing the already-compromised Medicare buy-in was almost a given. It's the last fact that's really got me boiling. It was almost a given. The industry owns him. He directly benefits from their avoiding any real competition (since, as I've noted before, health insurance companies resemble oligopolies in America) through universal coverage, regional plans, a public option, or even a Medicare buy-in. Good business for them is good business for him. He's not alone. This industry spends a lot of money in lobbying Congressional leaders, both legally, and through the loopholes. It doesn't matter that most Americans want real reform - too many of their leaders get their marching orders from the health insurance companies. This is the real story in the Lieberman affair.
It extends well beyond health care, obviously. Look at any major industry in the United States and the amount of money they spend lobbying Congressional leaders. It is disgusting. Now, they like to give money to everyone (as it would be politically stupid to only give to one party), so they sometimes do donate to leaders who won't vote their cause. However, a lot do. The revolving door makes it even worse, as people move regularly from the industry, to regulating the industry, to the industry. Something just stinks here. And, of course, these companies have huge swaths of money, which make it hard for people to challenge them in the competition for Congress.
This isn't a left/right issue. It isn't even an anti-corporation issue. It's a democracy issue. If we want to have a strong democracy, the fact that Washington is owned by, and serves, corporations and industries, is a real problem. Look, it's in these companies' interests to lobby. It only makes sense for them to do so. The issue is, we don't check them on it. What we get are policies that are often bad for the majority of Americans, bad for the country in the long-run, but good for industries. We know they're problematic before they even get implemented, but they happen, anyway. Health care is a good example. We badly need to slow down the growth of health care spending, for the sake of our economy in the long-run. However, to do so, we need to implement some major overhauls of the system. Are we doing that? No. In fact, some of the best ways to lower costs in the long-run, like the public option, have already been dropped from the bill.
We can debate the specifics about many of these issues all day and night. And, so long as its on the actual facts, that's a good thing. But when the debate gets hijacked by companies, we have a serious problem, for both liberals and conservatives, and those of us who refuse to be categorized as either of those. When our government no longer works for us, but rather for companies who do not necessarily share our long-term interests, we need to bum rush the show. I don't even blame the industries themselves - it's in their interests to do this. The problem is when we let this kind of thing happen.
Democracy is a very precious thing. It came with a lot of blood, a lot of struggle, and a lot of pain. It is not something we can ever take for granted. The age of Obama is, I think, a scary time, though not because he's a Kenyan Muslim baby-killing gay-loving socialist-capitalist terrorist. It's about issues like democracy itself. I fear that people are becoming complacent, just because he's in power (at least on the left). Contrary to what he says, he is just a politician. His game is to stay in power, just like Joe Lieberman and others. Just because he's in power and there are Democratic majorities in Congress does not mean things are going to go well.
If you haven't seen it, there was a fantastic documentary on this past weekend, The People Speak, which should remind everyone that the things we value the most are the things we must fight for the most, at all times. That means, even with this supposedly liberal administration, that doesn't mean things will change. We have to hold our leaders accountable at all times. The way health care reform has unraveled over the past few months is a prime example. It has become one concession after another. Many say, trust Obama, he's looking out for us on this, it'll be fine. I say, do you know anything about American history? Yes, there will obviously be differences between an Obama administration and a Bush administration (though fewer than you'd think), but this one problem, illustrated by the Lieberman affair, that Washington serves industry over the populace, will remain with us unless we are willing to confront it. It's bad news for all of us, too, from the left and the right. That sacred pledge made hundreds of years ago, to have a government for the people, by the people, is at stake. Obama isn't looking out for us, people. We are looking out for us. We cannot go silent about this, we cannot wait to see how things play out. We need to act in whatever ways we can. In Voices of a People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove give use examples of the power of both the big and little guy/gal who stood up for democracy, freedom, and justice, throughout American history. What has happened in health care reform is indicative of what has happened in a number of other issues, and shows just how fragile our democracy is. Today, democracy, it don't look so good in America. We mustn't wait for our leadership to turn the tide and bring us back to some utopian state. We must put pressure on them ourselves. The great advances in American history only came after great pressure and struggle from Americans who saw wrong and gave everything to right it. We must follow the footsteps of those who came before us, and fight for that democracy. Let's start with health care reform.
p.s. - this has little to do with partisanship. People on the right should be angry about this trend as much as those on the left. While I think Democrats are definitely better than today's brand of Republican, they take a lot of money and allow their corporate interests to override the interests of their constituents and their country a lot, too. A website which has provided a lot of information about who's paying who (although it gets harder when we get to the loopholes, like jobs for wives discussed above) is opensecrets, which is run by the Center for Responsive Politics. Check it out!
Read More...
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Failure of the Federalist, No. 10
Despite our Founders' vision of independent powers exercising checks and balances to prevent a "tyranny of the majority," every branch of the federal government acted last month to cast its lot with torturers. But even though President Obama, Congress and the Court have united to hide evidence of high-level crime, Americans of conscience continue to resist, arguing that sweeping human rights abuses under the rug is a greater threat to national security than dealing with them openly and bringing the perpetrators to justice.
This Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Department of Defense v. ACLU that the Defense Department could maintain secrecy over photos documenting pervasive torture. While disappointing, the decision was more or less inevitable in the wake of the Obama administration's latest reversal.
After deciding to release evidence of torture in wake of court orders requiring disclosure, the administration later caved to pressure from the intelligence community, and even went so far as to force out the official whose decision antagonized the CIA leadership. Lobbying Congress to secure an amendment to FOIA, the administration bent over backward to protect torturers and keep them from facing justice.
Executive secrecy is appalling enough in the abstract, and even worse in the context of a cover up hiding evidence of apparent war crimes and torture. Authorized by an act of a complacent Congress bowing to a disingenuous administration, the Defense Department acted last week to withhold evidence of its own misconduct, based on an illusory justification citing the safety of U.S. troops abroad. And, as it must under Justice Jackson's analysis in the seminal Steel Seizure cases, the Supreme Court acquiesced.
Every branch of the U.S. government—the Executive, the Congress, and now the Supreme Court—has shockingly acted to sweep evidence of war crimes under the rug. Their collusion is a profound betrayal of our nation's historical legacy, a setback for international human rights, and a devastating defeat for democratic transparency in the face of official misconduct.
But in a democracy, even collusion among every branch of our federal government does not end the story. Last week, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee released a forceful coalition letter I wrote on behalf of nearly 30 interfaith, civil rights, and peace and justice organizations around the country to "explain why transparency and robust accountability are a strategic national security imperative, and to expose the self-interest of voices counseling against accountability."
The letter criticized the "self-serving and internally inconsistent diatribe" of the CIA leadership, reiterating that "any incident of torture or kidnapping violated international law," and also that "detainee abuse...undermined several important national security interests."
First, by forcing detainees to make unreliable statements, coercive interrogation proved to be a poor vehicle for intelligence gathering. Second, torture played into the hands of our nation's enemies by facilitating their recruitment efforts. Finally, torture sapped the morale of junior intelligence agents, as well as the experienced interrogators who complained about torture policies. (citations omitted)
Our coalition went on to examine the impact of torture with impunity on several important groups of stakeholders: (a) the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence services, whose morale has been sapped by the protection of criminals among them; (b) our nation's international allies, "many of which have voiced concerns about detainee mistreatment"; (c) civil society voices supportive of U.S. military deployments in areas where our legitimacy is contested; (d) and the "millions of Americans from all walks of life, demographics, professions, backgrounds, and communities who are appropriately appalled by the CIA's abuses."
Beyond noting the interests of these groups, our letter also reframed a number of misconceptions pervading the issue of accountability for torture, which grows only more pressing with the revelation over the weekend of continuing torture under the Obama administration despite the repudiation of enhanced interrogation techniques.
First, responding to "the self-serving ruse that releasing the photos would undermine the safety of U.S. troops deployed abroad," our coalition argues that "any potential harm to our troops inheres in the criminal conduct depicted in the photos, not their potential disclosure." Moreover, "[t]he extent to which that conduct has undermined our broader national security only reinforces the imperative of prosecution."
Second, the letter reframes the procedural posture, noting that "failing to investigate those who conceived, planned, and orchestrated violations of international law does not reflect political neutrality. In fact, the current investigation, limited to some junior agents, reflects pre-judgment in favor of alleged torturers." (emphasis in original)
Ultimately, "the Department of Defense retains--and we request[ed] that [the President] exercise--the authority to declassify and release the photos." As we argued last week, "Our safety as a nation, as well as the legitimacy of our system of justice, the integrity of our intelligence services, and the strength of our international alliances all depend on [President Obama's] willingness to restore the rule of law by ensuring its equal application to all."
This is the latest among many tests - most of which he has, so far, unfortunately failed - that will demonstrate who the President is in fact. Will he serve as the beacon of hope in government that he pretended to be throughout last year's campaign, or like other politicians, did he merely pander to the public in order to pursue his personal ambitions?
This article was originally published by Huffington Post.
Read More...
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Fort Hood and U.S. Foreign Policy
I've been meaning to put some thoughts down about the shootings at Fort Hood for a minute, but just haven't gotten around to it yet. There has been plenty of typical sensationalist media coverage (best exemplified by the common "terrorists in America?" theme going around), along with some crazy racist nutjob stories (the "Muslim conspiracy theory" stuff, linking this all to the plot to infiltrate Congress through interns and the military through officers like Hasan - really insane stuff). I'm going to stay away from that stuff because, well, there's not really anything there. If you want to read about the Islamophobia that arose after the attack, check out this piece. Instead, let me talk about the one angle we haven't heard much about - how this tragedy is directly linked to U.S. foreign policy.
As we find out more information, we discover that Major Hasan had serious grievances with American foreign policy in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. Not unlike a lot of other people. Pretty legitimate beef, too...the unreal number of civilian casualties, the number of U.S. casualties, the manipulated WMD evidence, the occupations, the pliant governments, the sweet military contracts and business deals, the trampling on international laws/norms/institutions...lots of beef. The closer you follow things, the more clear it becomes that Hasan's act of violence was driven primarily by his rage at these issues. And, while his actions are deplorable and should be condemned, that doesn't get U.S. foreign policy off the hook. There are serious problems with what we've done and are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hasan's anger at the situation is not dissimilar from the anger millions around the world feel about the conflicts. Had he opted for civil disobedience instead of murder, he'd be like so many Americans, infuriated by the government's foreign policy.
In fact, Hasan provides us a domestic example of what we might be doing to Iraqis and Afghanis. He worked with vets returning from the wars, many with serious mental and physical injuries. Hasan apparently had a hard time dealing with the pain he saw them going through. He obviously opposed the wars, identified with the victims of the wars (both the soldiers he worked with, and the civilians with whom he probably identified with as Muslims), and, despite attempts to be discharged because of his concern about his difficulties serving a military whose actions he could not reconcile with his own beliefs, was about to be sent over to Afghanistan. In a simple sense, Hasan clearly snapped. Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) sure comes to mind.
Now, imagine a civilian in Afghanistan. You've seen countless neighbors, friends, and family members either killed or seriously injured in the continued war, possibly by NATO forces, bombing raids, or extremist elements running rampant in the country due to the lawlessness aided by Washington's support of an inept regime (and lack of financial backing to stabilize the country). You're in a worse place than Hasan. There is a pretty good chance you're on the verge of snapping, or just waiting for a chance to attack and kill somebody. There is countless psychological research on versions of prospect theory, social identity theory, and post-traumatic stress disorder that can be used to explain both Hasan's actions, as well as those of civilians stuck in horrific wars. Basically, if Hasan did what he did, what do you think the civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan are likely to do if they got a chance? This isn't some ideational thing...these violent outbursts are very specific to the context of the situation.
Thus, we could see Hasan as possibly a tamer version of what we might be producing abroad with policies that many inside and outside of America have serious qualms with. Um...shouldn't that be, I don't know, a pretty important angle for the press to cover on this story? It's all about foreign policy. You'd think it might even trigger some re-evaluation of our policies.
One other point...Hasan tried like hell to get out of the military. Some stories suggest he hired a lawyer to try to get discharged. His aunt says he offered to pay for his medical training in exchange for a discharge. He himself suggested the military allow Muslims to be conscientious objectors when America was fighting Muslims. No matter how you slice it, he had serious qualms and wanted out. Would you want a psychiatrist, who worked primarily with veterans who were dealing with serious physical and mental issues from the wars, to stay in such a position with his concerns? No way. Yet, they wouldn't discharge him. Why? I don't know, could it be our massive military footprint all over the globe? Over 750 bases in 39 countries (plus over 100 additional bases outside of the continental US, troops in 151 foreign countries, occupiers in two separate countries where we have major conflict still raging...yeah, we're probably slightly overstretched. And by slightly, I mean unbelievably. So much so that the Army can't really spare any soldier, including someone like Hasan. Again...direct link to our foreign policy. Are we stretched so thin that we're putting people in the field who really shouldn't be there?
Anyway, aside from the stories about the victims and the tragedy itself, it seems to me that these are really important issues that we should think about when reflecting on the Fort Hood shootings. The event has a very direct link to U.S. foreign policy, one that should be probed pretty deeply. This connection hasn't been looked at enough, but hopefully we can convince people it should be examined. It would be a way to really do justice to the memories of those who lost their lives in that tragic event, along with countless other innocents who have died in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(For a sharper analysis on Fort Hood, check out this FPIF article. For a discussion of Fort Hood and PTSD, check out this piece by the always-excellent Dahr Jamail and this NPR article)
Read More...
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
"I'm for gay rights but ..."
So for the past few years I've been jousting with my family and loved ones around the issue of same sex marriage and repeatedly found my argument falling on deaf ears. In fact what I most often heard was, "I am for gay rights but..." and what would follow would immediately sweep away any indication of actual support for the union of two people from the same sex. As a service to myself and those with whom I will soon have this discussion with, I'll provide some statements and my rebuttals. Instead of taking our 45 minutes on spinning wheels, let's work and see and if we can cover some different ground.1) "I'm for gay rights but ... you can't compare being Black to being gay."
I feel you, I understand that being Black is different than being gay, but did you realize even in that statement you're implying that we don't have Black gay folk? No really, this is the part of the conversation where you keep on throwing out "they" which you might as well then say "those people." I know you don't like me bringing that up, because for so long and so often within the dominant White culture of America Black folks are referred to as "they", "those people" and even recently "that one." It's really a process of othering, trying to make a distinction of who is "in" and should receive privileges and who is "out" (pun intended).
2) No, you're not getting it, I didn't choose to be Black and I can't hide being Black.
Touche, you're probably don't remember when you chose to be Black, if you ever did. In fact, since we're talking - heterosexual to heterosexual, I don't remember when I choose to be straight, but that's besides the point. The point is that being "Black" and being "gay", as we sociologists say are both "socially constructed". Yeah, fancy academic words but definitely important. By socially constructed I mean that we create the boundaries and meanings for these categories. There is a great film that breaks this down and books, but let's be real, you ain't gonna pick up a book or watch a movie in the middle of this blog post, so let me do what I can to break it down now. While we've come to think of meaning of Blackness as something that can't be changed, avoided, and pretty much is like gravity, we've forgotten that was created. In fact, the dominant images and tropes of "What is Black", weren't even our creation. Think about it, how many people who identify as Black, would say "my skin is actually the color of Black." Very few, in fact, we respond by saying things like "I'm brown, caramel, dark chocolate, etc." all descriptors that side-step an imposed moniker. Also have we forgotten that for so many years, the oppression of being Black and not having access to rights made many of our ancestors pass? Yeah, that's right, not all of us are "definitively Black" and certainly what it means to be Black has carried consequences.
3) That's my point, almost exactly, you can tell when someone is Black usually, but you never know if they're gay! Well unless they're really flamboyant or something.
Ah, I get it, if you are gay you don't have to "look or act gay" and if you don't act gay, you'll be fine in society. Yeah, that's called passing ... well actually more appropriately covering. See, as a Black folks, I really hope we think deeply about oppression and how oppressive it must be to not be able to show your love for someone else. If I walk outside and decide to kiss a strange woman in the middle of the street I won't get many strange glares (other than folks saying "Dumi's a wild cat") but if I love someone of the same gender and walk arm-in-arm with them down the street I'm likely to get screw faces down the block. As a result, we, heterosexual folks often say stuff like, "I don't care what you do behind closed doors but I don't want to see it." Interesting... we live in a society were the physical expression of romantic love between people is common, but almost completely forbidden for certain groups. In order to be one's self we ask people not to express themselves and "pass" or "cover" for straight. That doesn't sound very equal or liberated to me. Can you imagine a community where love was the norm and hate was not what we used to regulate others behaviors? (that's rhetorical)
4) Okay, I get that, but doesn't it piss you off when they use the Civil Rights Movement for their movement?
Once again, what's up with the us and them type of thinking. Gay Black folks have been around for a long time, to act as if they are not us is to deny part of ourselves. In fact, the most prominent voice and architect of the Civil Rights Movement was Martin Luther King Jr. His work centered on non-violence which he derived from Gandhi but he learned from Bayard Rustin who was a queer Black man. Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Queer Black folks have been at the center of our movement for rights as well as our cultural and social uplift, why try to write them out of history now? Or rather why not acknowledge the central role they've played in the collective Black struggle which should include lgbtq brothers and sisters? We can only say gay folks are piggy-backing on the civil rights movement if we don't acknowledge the contribution of gay folks to the movement. Now has the equal rights movement around sexuality taken on some tropes that came along during the Civil Rights movement, absolutely! But all subsequent movements do that, in fact, a marker of a successful social movement is an adoption of some its techniques. But let's not forget what the Civil Rights Movement was about! It was fighting to make the 14th and 15th amendments real!!! Those amendments legally gave Black folks equal civil rights but when we looked at how Black people were treated and what they could do, it is seen that it's unequal. I think we can take a similar look at the Gay Rights movement which is simply fighting for the same rights that heterosexuals have, be it marriage, adequate healthcare, or to live freely in society.
5) I hear what you're saying but God made "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve"! We're a Christian country and marriage is a bond before God between man and woman.
Ah, you got me with that one, I didn't realize a rhyme could break down an entire situation. Oh wait, no it can't. There is an entrenched myth in this country that marriage is exclusively a religious, often insinuated Christian, practice that the government sanctions. Not true at all, anthropologists have long observed and discussed marriage as beyond Christian and beyond the sanctioning of the state. It is true here that many associate the two, but that does not seem logical that it must also be seen as such. First, the mythos of the United States as Chrisitian nation is based on ignoring that colonies were founded out of the fleeing of religious oppression. How ironic is it that religion would then become the basis for oppression in 2009 and 1619 when non-Christian Africans arrived in captivity and quickly were proclaimed subhuman and savage. If you are going to invoke the credo of a nation, then I'd suggest you invoke the ones of equality and diversity, which means you are welcome to have your beliefs but your beliefs should not be the basis for impinging on other's rights.
Now I know by this point you likely still don't agree with me, but I do want you to see there is validity to a discussion about gay rights and the civil rights or more importantly gay rights as civil and human rights! I do want you to see that all to often we neglect and relegate a part of our people to inhumane and unjustified treatments through our active and passive condoning of covering. I do want us all to think about what MLK meant when he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I do want us to really grapple with the fact that if Huey Newton in the 1970s could see the connection, we should be able to see it in 2009. I wrote this because I worry about a people's ability to turn a blind eye to injustice in a world and nation that often has suggested the unjust is just the way it should be. For a people who have fought for existence and rights, it should only be natural to continue that fight with our brothers and sisters.
***this piece is designed to be a primer and conversation starter. there are many more things to say, but wanted to get the ball rolling and get some basic ideas out there***
Read More...
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
On America's Moral Barometers...
So, Plaxico Burress just got a 2-year jail sentence for carrying a licensed gun into a nightclub and shooting himself in the leg, but nobody else. Michael Vick just got reinstated to the NFL after serving 2 years in jail for his role in financing a dog-fighting racket. In both cases, lots of people have voiced outrage as to the supposed leniency in their cases. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong (though I really think Burress' sentence is kind of crazy), nor am I condoning their actions...but do these people follow the news????I mean, seriously, is Michael Vick the guy we need to go after? I get it, he played a part in something horrible, especially if you are a dog-lover (I'm indifferent, but can sympathize), but understand that the harm he inflicted, while obviously bad, was limited...and he paid his dues by going to jail and losing his money. Same will happen to Plax, whose football career is essentially over - 2 years in jail for a wide receiver at Burress' age means nobody will sign him when he's out. Barry Bonds, the home-run king, has essentially been blacklisted by Major League Baseball, and the players in general have come under fire for their use of steroids, but nobody is talking about the owners who looked the other way in the 1990s when juice-induced homers were filling the seats and their pockets. Michael Phelps, Olympic hero (and University of Michigan grad - go Blue!), attracted so much criticism for his admission that he had smoked marijuana in the past.
I'm not sure what the hell happened to America, but since when were sports athletes our moral barometers? Seriously. I'm not condoning any of the actions mentioned above, but give me a break. I'd say, at the very least, we should hold our leaders more accountable than the guys we watch throw spirals, right? I get the outrage some people felt when Vick was let back into the league, but, again, he actually paid for his crimes. How many of our leaders have done no such thing? How many people in far more important positions involved in far more serious matters have gotten away with murder? Literally? Yet, America directs more of its outrage at NFL stars doing dumb and horrible things than Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR - a former Halliburton subsidiary), who got some sweet contracts from the US government (and who says having friends in high positions, like Dick Cheney, et. al., doesn't pay?) in Iraq, have misused a lot of the money, and most importantly, may have done such a shoddy job on electrical wiring that that this work killed 16 US soldiers due to electrocution this past year. In some of the cases, the Pentagon already announced no criminal charges will be filed. Well, of course not. Paying a company $80 million to wire facilities in Iraq, and then have a number of US soldiers die because they were electrocuted in showers in those facilities, doesn't seem to be a serious matter at all. Totally not linked, you know, wiring and multiple electrocution deaths in showers. Now, if you really want to talk about morality, let me tell you about Michael Vick...
Speculation is that Burress got a pretty harsh sentence because Mayor Bloomberg wanted to make an example out of him. Okay. So, let me see if I got this right. You want to make an example out of somebody for doing something bad. In New York city. Um...do you know Wall Street is in the area? Because, while Plax is a fool for carrying a gun into a club, and he definitely could have potentially done a lot of harm, he actually only shot himself, whereas our "great" business minds on Wall Street ran amuck and broke our economy with their recklessness, causing a hell of a lot of real harm to countless Americans. What some of them did was totally criminal. So...lets throw the book at Plax instead!
How many laws did the Bush administration break? It seems like we're still getting stories every few weeks about something insane and criminal they did to this day. What are the consequences? None, basically, because they were only the leaders of our country. John Yoo teaches at Berkeley. Dick Cheney seems ready for his own prime time television show. Alberto Gonzalez still can't remember a damn thing and will be teaching political science courses (why, god, why?) at Texas Tech. George W. Bush is putting together a think tank (no, that's not a joke). None of them are in jail. None of them went to trial to go to jail. And I doubt any of them will. While this is killing some progressives across the country (and people in general around the world), the general mood in America is, we shouldn't go after these guys. Awesome. We've got bigger fish to fry. Athletes. Rappers. Not guys who lie to Congress in sworn testimony - he totally doesn't deserve to go to jail.
Over time, it seems like the people we should be holding up to higher moral and civic standards in our country are acting in absolutely appalling ways. And, most importantly, they're getting away with it. Rachel Maddow shouldn't be one of the only people reporting on "the Family" at the C St. House, for instance, an institution that includes Congressional leaders who use taxpayer money to learn about coercion from some of the worst dictators around. Why hasn't there been wider coverage of Bobby Jindal using taxpayer dollars to fly to churches all over Louisiana to give communities checks with his name on it that came from the Obama stimulus bill that Jindal so openly deplored? How about really leaning heavily on Governor Sanford for being completely out of touch with everyone while he went down to Argentina to visit his mistress? Forget the affair, a governor of the state can't just leave town (and country) without telling anyone. By the way, he used taxpayer dollars for several of those trips before, and lots of taxpayer dollars in other inappropriate ways. Maybe he will be impeached (there seems to be some movement towards it), but political leaders sure seem to get away with a lot, so I'll believe he's held accountable when I see it. Now, if he was Michael Phelps, different story...
Charles Barkley famously quipped years ago that he wasn't a role model. Well, I think whether they want to be or not, athletes (and lots of other people in the public limelight, like musicians, actors, writers, etc.) have no choice but to be role models. That means acting responsibly, and paying the price when they don't. Oftentimes, they do get away with a lot. But sometimes they don't. On the other hand, there is no doubt our political, civic, and business leaders should be role models, far more than athletes, etc.. They are engaged in far more serious issues than entertaining us. Somewhere along the line, though, we shifted our moral barometers. Guys like Dick Cheney became untouchable, but guys like Barry Bonds became lightning rods for debates about "what was wrong in America." Well, I think the fact that the discussion has moved to that level might begin to tell us what is wrong in America.
Note: I realize I went after a lot of Republicans here...that's just because its easier, given the insane number of ridiculous scandals they've been involved with, but please don't think my point here is a partisan one. It's about the insanity of holding athletes, entertainers, etc., up to be the moral barometers of this country, while giving our actual leaders, in politics, in business, in civic life, a much easier pass.
Read More...
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Losing Wars We Already Won (Part I): Torture vs. WWII
Over the past century, our nation has triumphed over two sets of aspiring global tyrants: the axis powers in WWII, and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Our victories over these foes were, in each case, world-historical in scale and importance. Yet within less than a century, we now flirt with losing the principles those successes established.
First, our recent record on torture, and more recent failure to prosecute all officials involved in enabling it, undermines the legacy of international human rights we established after the Second World War. Second, after vindicating freedom, liberty, and individual privacy in the Cold War, we now dutifully submit to a surveillance state more intrusive than any that has ever existed in human history.
In other words, Bush and Cheney succeeded in doing what neither Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union could: eviscerate American values and undermine our grandest foreign policy accomplishments since the turn of the 20th century. And while President Obama's aim to “look forward, not backward,” may resemble a thoughtful political compromise, it is an illegal capitulation to illegitimate political interests carrying profound consequences for human rights and freedom both in the U.S. and around the world.
WWII and Human Rights...
The allied powers fought the Second World War largely in the name of human rights, which we enshrined in its wake with a series of international institutions. The United Nations was perhaps the most ambitious example; others include various treaties setting baseline standards for (among many other things) the treatment of detainees during wartime.
International institutions to ensure collective security represented a major leap forward for humankind, akin to the Apollo moon landing 20 years later. Not since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 had international relations undergone so fundamental a transformation. A core tenet of the post-WWII era, established by the Nuremberg Trials of former Nazi officials, held that individuals bear criminal liability for violating international human rights regardless of what domestic laws my authorize their conduct. The “following orders” defense was soundly rejected and officials up and down the chain of command faced justice for war crimes.
We Americans have been called upon to apply these principles to our own leaders only 60 years later. But our willingness to preserve our earlier achievements has proven lacking.
...vs. Torture with Impunity
Despite public pressure from voices across the political spectrum, the Obama administration continues to sweep torture under the rug. And while the Holder Justice Department has demonstrated welcome independence by recently announcing a limited investigation led by a special prosecutor, it could be worse than none at all if senior officials enjoy effective immunity.
First, investigating only junior level scapegoats would set a legal precedent that decisionmakers can violate human rights with impunity. Second, overlooking senior officials who set torture policies would confer artificial legitimacy on the range of offenses that were officially approved, despite their international illegality. While the current cover-up threatens the rule of law and real accountability is necessary, scapegoating could be even worse than doing nothing.
Failing to follow the key Nuremberg precedents--that “following orders” cannot justify war crimes and that liability transcends the chain of command--weakens them in the future. Mere omission vindicates lawlessness: sitting on our hands or prosecuting only some individuals involved will undermine the international legal framework we erected after defeating the Axis powers.
Immunity for any officials involved in torture will lead to an unfortunately predictable result: a global race to the bottom in human rights standards. Every two-bit despot the world over will claim a license to torture, maim and perhaps even kill at will.
Rather than stand accountable to the international community, any accused torturer need merely cite the Holder precedents (allowing perceived necessity to justify war crimes and resurrecting the lame “following orders” defense) to escape justice for whatever manner of abuse they might concoct. Even today, torture by U.S. officials reportedly continues at Guantanamo Bay, where Immediate Reaction Forces have killed at least one detainee while administering brutal force feedings lacking even sanitation, let alone anesthesia.
Moreover, by eroding a principle so fundamental as the prohibition on torture, underinclusive prosecution renders more palatable the full range of other international law violations. If even torture doesn't justify prosecuting everyone involved, why would, for instance, poaching endangered species or violating the ban on ozone-producing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)?
When attempting to justify their desire to sweep torture under the rug, apologists argue from both sides of their mouths. Accepting the “following orders” defense, they suggest that investigators ignore wrongdoing by interrogators who committed torture, yet conversely demand that senior officials who issued those orders should also escape investigation (despite their even greater culpability). Apologists wish to avoid “chilling current intelligence operations,” but given the dismal performance of our intelligence agencies, a little transparency and accountability is long overdue.
Examining other examples of prosecution offers even more reasons to pursue a robust and thorough--rather than artificially limited--investigation. Unless expanded from its initial contours, prosecutor John Durham's investigation will allow the architects of torture policy to remain free, while only other country's torturers face justice (or for that matter, while non-violent offenders in America receive prison sentences for less severe crimes). The resulting contrast and lack of proportionality could erode the legitimacy of both the international legal regime generally, and our own criminal justice system, in one fell swoop. Few discrete decisions--and even fewer omissions--could do so much damage so quickly to such vital institutions.
Our failure to apply the Nuremberg precedents threatens to sacrifice a civilizational advance as major as the printing press. Perhaps we should be less surprised, however, given that U.S. torture policy boasts a long, unapologetic history across a disappointing number of contexts. The result will ultimately turn on how much (and how sincerely) we honor the sacrifice of veterans who died in WWII--and whether everyday Americans committed to the legacy of human rights they established see fit to raise our voices.
This article was originally posted on Huffington Post.
Read More...
First, our recent record on torture, and more recent failure to prosecute all officials involved in enabling it, undermines the legacy of international human rights we established after the Second World War. Second, after vindicating freedom, liberty, and individual privacy in the Cold War, we now dutifully submit to a surveillance state more intrusive than any that has ever existed in human history.
In other words, Bush and Cheney succeeded in doing what neither Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union could: eviscerate American values and undermine our grandest foreign policy accomplishments since the turn of the 20th century. And while President Obama's aim to “look forward, not backward,” may resemble a thoughtful political compromise, it is an illegal capitulation to illegitimate political interests carrying profound consequences for human rights and freedom both in the U.S. and around the world.
WWII and Human Rights...
The allied powers fought the Second World War largely in the name of human rights, which we enshrined in its wake with a series of international institutions. The United Nations was perhaps the most ambitious example; others include various treaties setting baseline standards for (among many other things) the treatment of detainees during wartime.
International institutions to ensure collective security represented a major leap forward for humankind, akin to the Apollo moon landing 20 years later. Not since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 had international relations undergone so fundamental a transformation. A core tenet of the post-WWII era, established by the Nuremberg Trials of former Nazi officials, held that individuals bear criminal liability for violating international human rights regardless of what domestic laws my authorize their conduct. The “following orders” defense was soundly rejected and officials up and down the chain of command faced justice for war crimes.
We Americans have been called upon to apply these principles to our own leaders only 60 years later. But our willingness to preserve our earlier achievements has proven lacking.
...vs. Torture with Impunity
Despite public pressure from voices across the political spectrum, the Obama administration continues to sweep torture under the rug. And while the Holder Justice Department has demonstrated welcome independence by recently announcing a limited investigation led by a special prosecutor, it could be worse than none at all if senior officials enjoy effective immunity.
First, investigating only junior level scapegoats would set a legal precedent that decisionmakers can violate human rights with impunity. Second, overlooking senior officials who set torture policies would confer artificial legitimacy on the range of offenses that were officially approved, despite their international illegality. While the current cover-up threatens the rule of law and real accountability is necessary, scapegoating could be even worse than doing nothing.
Failing to follow the key Nuremberg precedents--that “following orders” cannot justify war crimes and that liability transcends the chain of command--weakens them in the future. Mere omission vindicates lawlessness: sitting on our hands or prosecuting only some individuals involved will undermine the international legal framework we erected after defeating the Axis powers.
Immunity for any officials involved in torture will lead to an unfortunately predictable result: a global race to the bottom in human rights standards. Every two-bit despot the world over will claim a license to torture, maim and perhaps even kill at will.
Rather than stand accountable to the international community, any accused torturer need merely cite the Holder precedents (allowing perceived necessity to justify war crimes and resurrecting the lame “following orders” defense) to escape justice for whatever manner of abuse they might concoct. Even today, torture by U.S. officials reportedly continues at Guantanamo Bay, where Immediate Reaction Forces have killed at least one detainee while administering brutal force feedings lacking even sanitation, let alone anesthesia.
Moreover, by eroding a principle so fundamental as the prohibition on torture, underinclusive prosecution renders more palatable the full range of other international law violations. If even torture doesn't justify prosecuting everyone involved, why would, for instance, poaching endangered species or violating the ban on ozone-producing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)?
When attempting to justify their desire to sweep torture under the rug, apologists argue from both sides of their mouths. Accepting the “following orders” defense, they suggest that investigators ignore wrongdoing by interrogators who committed torture, yet conversely demand that senior officials who issued those orders should also escape investigation (despite their even greater culpability). Apologists wish to avoid “chilling current intelligence operations,” but given the dismal performance of our intelligence agencies, a little transparency and accountability is long overdue.
Examining other examples of prosecution offers even more reasons to pursue a robust and thorough--rather than artificially limited--investigation. Unless expanded from its initial contours, prosecutor John Durham's investigation will allow the architects of torture policy to remain free, while only other country's torturers face justice (or for that matter, while non-violent offenders in America receive prison sentences for less severe crimes). The resulting contrast and lack of proportionality could erode the legitimacy of both the international legal regime generally, and our own criminal justice system, in one fell swoop. Few discrete decisions--and even fewer omissions--could do so much damage so quickly to such vital institutions.
Our failure to apply the Nuremberg precedents threatens to sacrifice a civilizational advance as major as the printing press. Perhaps we should be less surprised, however, given that U.S. torture policy boasts a long, unapologetic history across a disappointing number of contexts. The result will ultimately turn on how much (and how sincerely) we honor the sacrifice of veterans who died in WWII--and whether everyday Americans committed to the legacy of human rights they established see fit to raise our voices.
This article was originally posted on Huffington Post.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Health Care Reform: Correcting the misinformation
For the past three years I’ve been doing health policy research with the hope of helping to inform our elected officials about both the issues in our health care system and potential solutions. With the all of the news coverage of townhalls, speeches and protests regarding health reform, it has occurred to me that many people are horribly misinformed about many of aspects of our current health care system and the reforms being debated. I am always open to discussing these and other potential policies, so let me know if you want to chat. But before a more in depth conversation, I think there are some key aspects of the debate that need to be addressed.
What is health care reform?
There are many different aspects to health care reform, which include reforming the way we use the doctor, how the doctor diagnoses and treats us, and how it is all paid for. The items being discussed in the Senate and House are less about reforming health care (the way we use the doctor and how he/she diagnoses and treats us) and more about reforming the health insurance industry and market (how is the doctor paid for the visit and how do we pay for insurance).
Why is health care reform even needed?
There are about 50 million Americans who don’t have health insurance and thus don’t have the ability to go to the doctor like you and I do. They are unable to make an appointment with a regular private physician and often either delay care or end up in the emergency room to receive care which could have easily been done by a regular doctor. This is important not just because I believe that everyone should have access to health care, but also because the emergency room costs more than going to visit a doctor in his or her office. These costs, if they are not covered by insurance or the government, are passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher health care costs.
While the costs of health care are high for each of us, they are even higher for the government. Medicare, which is the government run health insurance program for those over 65 years old (and certain other key groups), is a huge cost to our federal government. Medicare is one on the fastest growing costs to the federal government. We need to do something now to lower health care costs to ensure that Medicare is available for all of us when we retire. The longer we wait the higher health care costs will become.
What are the goals of health care reform?
The main goals are to insure those who currently lack health insurance and to reduce overall health care costs.
So what does a public health insurance option do?
The public health insurance option is a way to reign in health care costs by creating competition with the private health insurance companies. This will force the private health insurance companies to have competitive pricing and benefits for all of us, because if they don’t people will choose to purchase health insurance through the government.
This public health insurance option is a government takeover of health care, right? It means that we are going to have a system like the UK or Canada, right?
Absolutely not. Think of the public health insurance option as a Medicare type program that the rest of us can buy into, if we want to. So if I am 61 and want to retire, but am too young for Medicare but can’t buy health insurance from the private market, I’ll be able to choose to purchase it from the government. It does not mean that private health insurance companies are going to go away or out of business. Trust me, they are doing just fine. In fact, the CEO of United Health Group made more than $125 million last year. Not to mention a recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that adding a public option will not force the private insurance companies out of business. For those of us with health insurance that we are happy with, we likely won’t see any changes, expect lower prices in the future.
I heard that the health insurance reforms will allow a bureaucrat decide who gets health care and who doesn’t, is this true?
No, that is exactly what these reforms are trying to stop. There are thousands of us, each day who receive a letter from the insurance company saying that the treatment or health care that was provided will not be covered and we are not required to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the care we received or our loved ones received. Not to mention, our doctors currently will only provide a treatment if they know it will be paid for by the insurance. These are examples of a bureaucrat between you and your doctor making treatment decisions. The government is trying to remove that bureaucrat with these reforms. Currently, health insurance companies can drop coverage when you get sick (after paying premiums for years) because of some undisclosed ailment you had when you signed up. The proposals being debated in the House and Senate are trying to stop this practice and trying to ensure that we all receive the health care that we need.
There have been several rumors about death panels and euthanasia in the recent days. These are completely false. They stem from an inclusion in one of the proposed bills stating that doctors can be reimbursed by Medicare for having discussions with their patients about living wills and other end of life decisions. So if you are enrolled in Medicare and you want to talk to your doctor about those decisions and seek his or her insight into the matters, the doctor will receive payment. This simply creates a financial incentive for doctors to encourage their patients to create living wills and have end of life conversations with our families. The government will not place a value on people’s lives and grant care accordingly.
Are these health care bills going to fix everything?
Unfortunately, no. The health care system in not an efficient system. Ultimately, we need to examine the way we reimburse doctors to ensure we are reimbursing quality and not simply the quantity of services provided. We need to provide financial incentives for doctors that provide high quality care at a lower cost, like the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota does. They provide amazing health care at a fraction of the cost of some doctors and hospitals around the country. In the United States we are paying about twice as much for health care than any other country in the world but receive far worse outcomes than most developed nations. This reform is not going to fix everything, but it is an important step in moving towards lower costs and higher quality care.
As always, feel free to spread the word.
Read More...
For the past three years I’ve been doing health policy research with the hope of helping to inform our elected officials about both the issues in our health care system and potential solutions. With the all of the news coverage of townhalls, speeches and protests regarding health reform, it has occurred to me that many people are horribly misinformed about many of aspects of our current health care system and the reforms being debated. I am always open to discussing these and other potential policies, so let me know if you want to chat. But before a more in depth conversation, I think there are some key aspects of the debate that need to be addressed.
What is health care reform?
There are many different aspects to health care reform, which include reforming the way we use the doctor, how the doctor diagnoses and treats us, and how it is all paid for. The items being discussed in the Senate and House are less about reforming health care (the way we use the doctor and how he/she diagnoses and treats us) and more about reforming the health insurance industry and market (how is the doctor paid for the visit and how do we pay for insurance).
Why is health care reform even needed?
There are about 50 million Americans who don’t have health insurance and thus don’t have the ability to go to the doctor like you and I do. They are unable to make an appointment with a regular private physician and often either delay care or end up in the emergency room to receive care which could have easily been done by a regular doctor. This is important not just because I believe that everyone should have access to health care, but also because the emergency room costs more than going to visit a doctor in his or her office. These costs, if they are not covered by insurance or the government, are passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher health care costs.
While the costs of health care are high for each of us, they are even higher for the government. Medicare, which is the government run health insurance program for those over 65 years old (and certain other key groups), is a huge cost to our federal government. Medicare is one on the fastest growing costs to the federal government. We need to do something now to lower health care costs to ensure that Medicare is available for all of us when we retire. The longer we wait the higher health care costs will become.
What are the goals of health care reform?
The main goals are to insure those who currently lack health insurance and to reduce overall health care costs.
So what does a public health insurance option do?
The public health insurance option is a way to reign in health care costs by creating competition with the private health insurance companies. This will force the private health insurance companies to have competitive pricing and benefits for all of us, because if they don’t people will choose to purchase health insurance through the government.
This public health insurance option is a government takeover of health care, right? It means that we are going to have a system like the UK or Canada, right?
Absolutely not. Think of the public health insurance option as a Medicare type program that the rest of us can buy into, if we want to. So if I am 61 and want to retire, but am too young for Medicare but can’t buy health insurance from the private market, I’ll be able to choose to purchase it from the government. It does not mean that private health insurance companies are going to go away or out of business. Trust me, they are doing just fine. In fact, the CEO of United Health Group made more than $125 million last year. Not to mention a recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that adding a public option will not force the private insurance companies out of business. For those of us with health insurance that we are happy with, we likely won’t see any changes, expect lower prices in the future.
I heard that the health insurance reforms will allow a bureaucrat decide who gets health care and who doesn’t, is this true?
No, that is exactly what these reforms are trying to stop. There are thousands of us, each day who receive a letter from the insurance company saying that the treatment or health care that was provided will not be covered and we are not required to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the care we received or our loved ones received. Not to mention, our doctors currently will only provide a treatment if they know it will be paid for by the insurance. These are examples of a bureaucrat between you and your doctor making treatment decisions. The government is trying to remove that bureaucrat with these reforms. Currently, health insurance companies can drop coverage when you get sick (after paying premiums for years) because of some undisclosed ailment you had when you signed up. The proposals being debated in the House and Senate are trying to stop this practice and trying to ensure that we all receive the health care that we need.
There have been several rumors about death panels and euthanasia in the recent days. These are completely false. They stem from an inclusion in one of the proposed bills stating that doctors can be reimbursed by Medicare for having discussions with their patients about living wills and other end of life decisions. So if you are enrolled in Medicare and you want to talk to your doctor about those decisions and seek his or her insight into the matters, the doctor will receive payment. This simply creates a financial incentive for doctors to encourage their patients to create living wills and have end of life conversations with our families. The government will not place a value on people’s lives and grant care accordingly.
Are these health care bills going to fix everything?
Unfortunately, no. The health care system in not an efficient system. Ultimately, we need to examine the way we reimburse doctors to ensure we are reimbursing quality and not simply the quantity of services provided. We need to provide financial incentives for doctors that provide high quality care at a lower cost, like the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota does. They provide amazing health care at a fraction of the cost of some doctors and hospitals around the country. In the United States we are paying about twice as much for health care than any other country in the world but receive far worse outcomes than most developed nations. This reform is not going to fix everything, but it is an important step in moving towards lower costs and higher quality care.
As always, feel free to spread the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
