Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Campaign Finance Reform Deferred
A year ago, President Barack Obama was considering an executive order to require all corporations with a government contract to disclose political spending. Campaign finance reformers were all aglow because it looked like a defacto Disclose Act, which would require disclosure of political spending of over $1,000.
In February 2012, Obama's re-election campaign announced that it would support Priorities USA and other Democratic Super PACs and it pledged to work on campaign finance work in the meantime. Obama supports House and Senate versions of the Disclose Act, which has no chance of passing.
President Obama could try to force nominees onto the Federal Election Commission or call for the Securities Exchange Commission to issue rules requiring political spending disclosure. He is not likely to do either.
In February 2012, Obama's re-election campaign announced that it would support Priorities USA and other Democratic Super PACs and it pledged to work on campaign finance work in the meantime. Obama supports House and Senate versions of the Disclose Act, which has no chance of passing.
President Obama could try to force nominees onto the Federal Election Commission or call for the Securities Exchange Commission to issue rules requiring political spending disclosure. He is not likely to do either.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
War on Drones: An Aerial Outside Agitator Coming to Your Neighborhood
I have previously blogged on the dangers of U.S. drone attacks but the recent writings of Jeff Morley, who writes for Salon Magazine, have given updated context in terms of frequency of drone attacks, number of victims, the fear and intimidation they cause, and their use in the United States.
Jeff Morley's estimate that Barack Obama has launched three to four times the number of drone strikes as George W. Bush did, over a comparable period, is in line with other informed estimates. Morley's number of 174 children killed by drones is probably taken from the U.K.-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which puts the number of Pakistanis killed by drones in the range of 2,500 to 3,000, with between 479 and 831 being civilians.
According to polls Morley has see, opposition to drones is almost universal in Pakistan, fueled not only by the strikes themselves, but by the fact that in some areas of Pakistan, seeing a drone is almost a daily occurrence. it has got to be frightening to realize that anyone of those drones could be targeting you, your family, or friends and associates.
The accuracy of identifying legitimate targets is certainly a problem. During the war in Iraq, the International Red Cross found that most of the thousands of Iraqis being held in captivity by U.S. forces had not been charged with a crime. The fact that U.S. intelligence did not have good information on suspected insurgents meant that family members and close friends were held, because they might supply incriminating evidence or clues to suspect's locations.
During the early stages of the war in Afghanistan, some suspects were detained on the basis that they had the same or similar name of a suspected insurgent/terrorist. Others were turned in by someone who had a score to settle or wanted to get rid of an inconvenient rival.
Jeff Morley raises the issue that as the top terrorist leaders are being killed off, the bar might be lowered to attack lower echelon terrorist suspects. It wasn't long ago that reports surfaced of an argument raging in the Obama administration of targeting the "soldiers" who carry out terrorist plots. Thus, those seen unloading what looks like explosives could be hit, along with those frequenting a terrorist hangout.
Besides the real possibility that U.S. drone strikes might be creating more terrorists than they eliminate, Americans should be concerned about aerial outside agitators coming into their communities. Miami-Dade County and a county in Texas already have certification to use drones in law enforcement and ten more counties have applied for certification. We have already given up much of our privacy to government surveillance.
Jeff Morley's estimate that Barack Obama has launched three to four times the number of drone strikes as George W. Bush did, over a comparable period, is in line with other informed estimates. Morley's number of 174 children killed by drones is probably taken from the U.K.-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which puts the number of Pakistanis killed by drones in the range of 2,500 to 3,000, with between 479 and 831 being civilians.
According to polls Morley has see, opposition to drones is almost universal in Pakistan, fueled not only by the strikes themselves, but by the fact that in some areas of Pakistan, seeing a drone is almost a daily occurrence. it has got to be frightening to realize that anyone of those drones could be targeting you, your family, or friends and associates.
The accuracy of identifying legitimate targets is certainly a problem. During the war in Iraq, the International Red Cross found that most of the thousands of Iraqis being held in captivity by U.S. forces had not been charged with a crime. The fact that U.S. intelligence did not have good information on suspected insurgents meant that family members and close friends were held, because they might supply incriminating evidence or clues to suspect's locations.
During the early stages of the war in Afghanistan, some suspects were detained on the basis that they had the same or similar name of a suspected insurgent/terrorist. Others were turned in by someone who had a score to settle or wanted to get rid of an inconvenient rival.
Jeff Morley raises the issue that as the top terrorist leaders are being killed off, the bar might be lowered to attack lower echelon terrorist suspects. It wasn't long ago that reports surfaced of an argument raging in the Obama administration of targeting the "soldiers" who carry out terrorist plots. Thus, those seen unloading what looks like explosives could be hit, along with those frequenting a terrorist hangout.
Besides the real possibility that U.S. drone strikes might be creating more terrorists than they eliminate, Americans should be concerned about aerial outside agitators coming into their communities. Miami-Dade County and a county in Texas already have certification to use drones in law enforcement and ten more counties have applied for certification. We have already given up much of our privacy to government surveillance.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
An Uninformative Afghan Speech and a Highly Questionable Agreement
President Barack Obama made his speech from Afghanistan very recently, with the podium parked in front of two U.S. armored vehicles with U.S. flags attached to them. This display of armored might is hardly comforting to those many viewers who don't associate war-making power with a nation intent on peacekeeping.
The Obama speech on the future conduct of the war was very short on content and was far more optimistic than the last six-month report by the Pentagon. Whereas Obama sees significant progress in reducing Taliban strength, the Pentagon report revealed a mixed picture of some reduction in violence and some territorial gains over the Taliban; however, the Taliban were described as resilient and capable of making gains in the spring and summer fighting season. General John Allen, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has been described as wanting to slow the pace of U.S. troop withdrawals, especially in areas where gains have been made against the Taliban.
There was no mention in Obama's speech of how many U.S. troops will be left in Afghanistan after December 2014, the date by which the U.S. is scheduled to have no further combat role in Afghanistan. The speech was also devoid of any estimate of how much the U.S. involvement with assisting the Afghans in the future will cost.
The rationale for the Obama speech was to announce the completion of a 10-year agreement, which would be the template for U.S. interaction with Afghanistan through 2024. Although in the agreement there is a provision stating that the agreement meet U.S. legal requirements, there has been no announced intent to submit it to the U.S. Congress for consideration as a treaty, yet the agreement contains many of the elements that would be found in a treaty. When George W. Bush concluded an agreement with Iraq, setting forth as a prime component that U.S. troops would depart from Iraq -- at least the great bulk of them -- no later than December 31, 2011, some Democratic legislators in Congress demanded the agreement be submitted for consideration as a treaty. Although it is still very early for reaction to fully form on the agreement, no member of Congress has yet requested the agreement's submission as a treaty.
The Obama speech on the future conduct of the war was very short on content and was far more optimistic than the last six-month report by the Pentagon. Whereas Obama sees significant progress in reducing Taliban strength, the Pentagon report revealed a mixed picture of some reduction in violence and some territorial gains over the Taliban; however, the Taliban were described as resilient and capable of making gains in the spring and summer fighting season. General John Allen, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has been described as wanting to slow the pace of U.S. troop withdrawals, especially in areas where gains have been made against the Taliban.
There was no mention in Obama's speech of how many U.S. troops will be left in Afghanistan after December 2014, the date by which the U.S. is scheduled to have no further combat role in Afghanistan. The speech was also devoid of any estimate of how much the U.S. involvement with assisting the Afghans in the future will cost.
The rationale for the Obama speech was to announce the completion of a 10-year agreement, which would be the template for U.S. interaction with Afghanistan through 2024. Although in the agreement there is a provision stating that the agreement meet U.S. legal requirements, there has been no announced intent to submit it to the U.S. Congress for consideration as a treaty, yet the agreement contains many of the elements that would be found in a treaty. When George W. Bush concluded an agreement with Iraq, setting forth as a prime component that U.S. troops would depart from Iraq -- at least the great bulk of them -- no later than December 31, 2011, some Democratic legislators in Congress demanded the agreement be submitted for consideration as a treaty. Although it is still very early for reaction to fully form on the agreement, no member of Congress has yet requested the agreement's submission as a treaty.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
The Wistful Fantasies of Obama Supporters
President Barack Obama offers little in the way of policy proposals for a second term, yet his most ardent supporters continue to spin wistful fantasies about the great changes an Obama second term will bring. Obama has declared inequality in the United States to be the signature issue of the times; however, he has virtually no program to address that inequality. Many of his supporters, who see the Affordable Care Act as falling short of their hopes and dreams, still tout it as a waystation to much more significant change. Obama's supporters pay much more attention to what he says than to what he does.
The tax rate system with a high top marginal tax rate could reduce the concentration of wealth and income among the top few percent of Americans, much as it did after World War II, when the top marginal tax rate ranged from 70.45 percent to 91 percent. Obama, at best, will restore the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent for those earning over $250,000 a year by not extending the Bush tax cuts for these high earners. It is unlikely that the Republicans in the House and Senate will agree to end the Bush tax cuts only for high earners.
Obama's only other tax proposals for the future are enacting the Buffett rule and ending some tax preferences and loopholes for the very well-off -- he has specifically called for an end to tax breaks for private airplane owners and oil and gas subsidies/credits. The Buffett rule enactment would bring in revenue of about $47 billion over ten years and would affect only a small percentage of millionaires and billionaires. Ending the tax breaks that Obama has specifically mentioned would not raise significant revenue. Moreover, in a pamphlet in which President Obama defines what "CHANGE IS," he calls for even more tax cuts to help create jobs. When you combine the real likelihood that Obama will not get much additional revenue in a possible second term, with the calculations of economists at the Center for American Progress that Obama has already cut taxes by $900 billion to $1 trillion, he will not have the money to do great things in a second term. And yet with all that has been said above, Obamas still proposes to increase revenue by $1.5 trillion over ten years.
The kind of wistful thinking referred to in the title of this blog, which limits the chances of getting fundamental change, was illustrated at a New Mexico Sierra Club event I attended last week. The speaker was Eric Griegos, a Democratic candidate for the First District U.S. House seat. I asked Mr. Griegos why he supported the Buffett rule, since it would not bring in much revenue and would probably make it more difficult in the future to get a tax structure with rates reminiscent of those in effect from the 1950s to 1980. Eric Griegos acknowledged the small revenue impact of the Buffett rule and also admitted that even with very high tax rates, there was great economic prosperity after World War II, but then said it would be remarkable if anti-tax Republicans -- and some Democrats -- would accept very wealthy people actually paying 30 percent of their income. Setting such a low taxation cap will cripple raising future revenue.
It is going to become apparent in the not-too-distant future that much more revenue must be raised to fund largely locked-in budgetary imperitives; therefore, responsible political parties must begin to prepare the public for needed financial sacrifices.
The focus to this point has been almost exclusively on taxation matters; however, the same kind of wishful thinking as with taxation prevails with health care reform. Many of those who wanted a single-payer plan or at least a robust public option, support the Affordable Care Act on the basis that it is a big step on the way to more fundamental reform. The more likely future reality is that a limited reform will make it less likely that a single-payer can be enacted, because some of the pressure for it has been vented away.
In looking at what an Obama second term might look like, it is more important to focus on what he has done, rather than rely on the generalized, unspecific things he might do in the future. Based on his record, he is not likely to: significantly deflate a bloated Pentagon; reduce our capacity to build nuclear warheads and delivery systems; trim and make more transparent a sprawling intelligence complex -- promised in the 2008 presidential campaign -- abandon his adherence to George W. Bush's positions on civil liberties; build a renewable energy future by cutting back on fossil fuel energy production; and substitute a law enforcement/diplomatic approach for the largely military force approach now being followed in the War on Terror.
Very recently, the Obama administration completed negotiations on a 10-year commitment to Afghanistan security after the tentative 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of the bulk of U.S. troops. We don't yet know the details of that agreement -- not yet formally signed -- but it portends a large drain on U.S. resources until at least 2114. An early report on the agreeement is that the United States will supply Afghanistan with at least $2.3 billion in funding each year. If this is true, it would be unconstitutional, as the executive branch cannot commit unappropriated funds. Moreover, the word is that the agreement will be submitted to the Afghan parliament but not to the U.S. Congress, meaning that the Afghanistan government will be acting in a more democratic way than will the U.S. government. Coupled with this commitment to Afghan nation-building, President Obama says in "CHANGE IS" that the U.S. "remains committed to Iraq's long-term security...."
Overall, than, looking ahead to what Obama will likely do if elected to a second term, the public motto should not be "Yes We Can" but 'No We Shouldn't."
The tax rate system with a high top marginal tax rate could reduce the concentration of wealth and income among the top few percent of Americans, much as it did after World War II, when the top marginal tax rate ranged from 70.45 percent to 91 percent. Obama, at best, will restore the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent for those earning over $250,000 a year by not extending the Bush tax cuts for these high earners. It is unlikely that the Republicans in the House and Senate will agree to end the Bush tax cuts only for high earners.
Obama's only other tax proposals for the future are enacting the Buffett rule and ending some tax preferences and loopholes for the very well-off -- he has specifically called for an end to tax breaks for private airplane owners and oil and gas subsidies/credits. The Buffett rule enactment would bring in revenue of about $47 billion over ten years and would affect only a small percentage of millionaires and billionaires. Ending the tax breaks that Obama has specifically mentioned would not raise significant revenue. Moreover, in a pamphlet in which President Obama defines what "CHANGE IS," he calls for even more tax cuts to help create jobs. When you combine the real likelihood that Obama will not get much additional revenue in a possible second term, with the calculations of economists at the Center for American Progress that Obama has already cut taxes by $900 billion to $1 trillion, he will not have the money to do great things in a second term. And yet with all that has been said above, Obamas still proposes to increase revenue by $1.5 trillion over ten years.
The kind of wistful thinking referred to in the title of this blog, which limits the chances of getting fundamental change, was illustrated at a New Mexico Sierra Club event I attended last week. The speaker was Eric Griegos, a Democratic candidate for the First District U.S. House seat. I asked Mr. Griegos why he supported the Buffett rule, since it would not bring in much revenue and would probably make it more difficult in the future to get a tax structure with rates reminiscent of those in effect from the 1950s to 1980. Eric Griegos acknowledged the small revenue impact of the Buffett rule and also admitted that even with very high tax rates, there was great economic prosperity after World War II, but then said it would be remarkable if anti-tax Republicans -- and some Democrats -- would accept very wealthy people actually paying 30 percent of their income. Setting such a low taxation cap will cripple raising future revenue.
It is going to become apparent in the not-too-distant future that much more revenue must be raised to fund largely locked-in budgetary imperitives; therefore, responsible political parties must begin to prepare the public for needed financial sacrifices.
The focus to this point has been almost exclusively on taxation matters; however, the same kind of wishful thinking as with taxation prevails with health care reform. Many of those who wanted a single-payer plan or at least a robust public option, support the Affordable Care Act on the basis that it is a big step on the way to more fundamental reform. The more likely future reality is that a limited reform will make it less likely that a single-payer can be enacted, because some of the pressure for it has been vented away.
In looking at what an Obama second term might look like, it is more important to focus on what he has done, rather than rely on the generalized, unspecific things he might do in the future. Based on his record, he is not likely to: significantly deflate a bloated Pentagon; reduce our capacity to build nuclear warheads and delivery systems; trim and make more transparent a sprawling intelligence complex -- promised in the 2008 presidential campaign -- abandon his adherence to George W. Bush's positions on civil liberties; build a renewable energy future by cutting back on fossil fuel energy production; and substitute a law enforcement/diplomatic approach for the largely military force approach now being followed in the War on Terror.
Very recently, the Obama administration completed negotiations on a 10-year commitment to Afghanistan security after the tentative 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of the bulk of U.S. troops. We don't yet know the details of that agreement -- not yet formally signed -- but it portends a large drain on U.S. resources until at least 2114. An early report on the agreeement is that the United States will supply Afghanistan with at least $2.3 billion in funding each year. If this is true, it would be unconstitutional, as the executive branch cannot commit unappropriated funds. Moreover, the word is that the agreement will be submitted to the Afghan parliament but not to the U.S. Congress, meaning that the Afghanistan government will be acting in a more democratic way than will the U.S. government. Coupled with this commitment to Afghan nation-building, President Obama says in "CHANGE IS" that the U.S. "remains committed to Iraq's long-term security...."
Overall, than, looking ahead to what Obama will likely do if elected to a second term, the public motto should not be "Yes We Can" but 'No We Shouldn't."
Friday, April 20, 2012
Dropping Iranian Options Off the Table
President Barack Obama has frequently stated that with regard to Iran's nuclear program, all options are open, including bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Yet, Obama has been dropping options off the table until the military attack option has become about the only one left standing.
The most intriguing question being raised now is whether or not Obama was mouse-trapped by the Israeli government. Did Israel trick Obama into narrowing his options by orchestrating a "Can't Wait" campaign on the need to bomb Iran now or soon to prevent irreversible progress on developing a nuclear bomb? And did Obama strike an agreement with Israel that if the Israelis didn't attack Iran before the U.S. November elections, the U.S. would do the job for them if Iran crossed a red line, probably short of confirmed development of a nuclear bomb?
The option to have other countries enrich Iranian low-grade uranium was dropped even before U.S.-Israeli consultations of the past few months. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, once endorsed outsourcing enrichment; however, when Turkey and Brazil were on the verge of such a deal with Iran, the United States led the opposition to it.
During the course of the Cold War, the United States followed a policy of live-and-let-live with the Soviet Union and other nuclear powers, including China. Obama has burned that bridge. So if the talks now underway with the Iranian government fail and sanctions don't induce Iranian capitulation in months, not years, the bombing option is the only one left. There is general agreement that bombing Iran would retard its nuclear program by only a year or two.
Jonathan Schell has said that "Disarmament wars threaten or occur when force becomes the chosen instrument for preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Schell sees a "remarkable" similarity between Obama's policy on Iran and George W. Bush's policy on Iraq a decade ago:
"As Bush did, Obama suspects a country of developing nuclear weapons. As Bush did, he deems that unacceptable. As Bush did, he rules out the live-and-let-live solution of containment. As Bush did, he identifies military force as the ultimate solution. Most important, as Bush did, he sees the particular crisis in question (Iraq for Bush, Iran for Obama) as a skirmish in the larger global cause of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction."
There are two bills before Congress -- S. Res. 380 and H. Res. 568 -- which would require a military strike on Iran acquiring a "nuclear weapons capability." A total of 26 national organizations have banded together to sign a letter to the House and Senate chairpersons of committees considering the two bills. The organizations oppose the bills and also want the "no contact policy" with Iran abandoned.
In their letter, the 26 organizations cite likely consequences of a military strike on Iran: make a nuclear-armed Iran more likely; impose tremendous burdens on a fragile global economy; spike gas prices; cut jobs at home; and would be devastating to human rights and the pro-democracy movement in Iran.
Jonathan Schell's solution is to permit Iran's enrichment of nuclear fuel to nuclear power-grade in return for Iran's full disclosure of its nuclear programs and their history, along with acceptance of strict inspections and controls to prevent the country from enriching uranium to nuclear weapons-grade. Or to go Schell one better, the U.S. could follow the live-and-let-live policy of the Cold War.
The best solution of all for nuclear weapons proliferation is a nuclear weapons-free world.
The most intriguing question being raised now is whether or not Obama was mouse-trapped by the Israeli government. Did Israel trick Obama into narrowing his options by orchestrating a "Can't Wait" campaign on the need to bomb Iran now or soon to prevent irreversible progress on developing a nuclear bomb? And did Obama strike an agreement with Israel that if the Israelis didn't attack Iran before the U.S. November elections, the U.S. would do the job for them if Iran crossed a red line, probably short of confirmed development of a nuclear bomb?
The option to have other countries enrich Iranian low-grade uranium was dropped even before U.S.-Israeli consultations of the past few months. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, once endorsed outsourcing enrichment; however, when Turkey and Brazil were on the verge of such a deal with Iran, the United States led the opposition to it.
During the course of the Cold War, the United States followed a policy of live-and-let-live with the Soviet Union and other nuclear powers, including China. Obama has burned that bridge. So if the talks now underway with the Iranian government fail and sanctions don't induce Iranian capitulation in months, not years, the bombing option is the only one left. There is general agreement that bombing Iran would retard its nuclear program by only a year or two.
Jonathan Schell has said that "Disarmament wars threaten or occur when force becomes the chosen instrument for preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Schell sees a "remarkable" similarity between Obama's policy on Iran and George W. Bush's policy on Iraq a decade ago:
"As Bush did, Obama suspects a country of developing nuclear weapons. As Bush did, he deems that unacceptable. As Bush did, he rules out the live-and-let-live solution of containment. As Bush did, he identifies military force as the ultimate solution. Most important, as Bush did, he sees the particular crisis in question (Iraq for Bush, Iran for Obama) as a skirmish in the larger global cause of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction."
There are two bills before Congress -- S. Res. 380 and H. Res. 568 -- which would require a military strike on Iran acquiring a "nuclear weapons capability." A total of 26 national organizations have banded together to sign a letter to the House and Senate chairpersons of committees considering the two bills. The organizations oppose the bills and also want the "no contact policy" with Iran abandoned.
In their letter, the 26 organizations cite likely consequences of a military strike on Iran: make a nuclear-armed Iran more likely; impose tremendous burdens on a fragile global economy; spike gas prices; cut jobs at home; and would be devastating to human rights and the pro-democracy movement in Iran.
Jonathan Schell's solution is to permit Iran's enrichment of nuclear fuel to nuclear power-grade in return for Iran's full disclosure of its nuclear programs and their history, along with acceptance of strict inspections and controls to prevent the country from enriching uranium to nuclear weapons-grade. Or to go Schell one better, the U.S. could follow the live-and-let-live policy of the Cold War.
The best solution of all for nuclear weapons proliferation is a nuclear weapons-free world.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Buffett Rule Exposed as Popular Fraud
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group, has estimated that the average tax rate, including payroll taxes, for the middle 20 percent of U.S. families will be 15.9 percent in 2015. Of the 217,000 households that will be affected by the Buffett rule, 4,000 will have incomes exceeding $1 million and tax rates below 15 percent. So, according to the Tax Policy Center estimate, less than two percent of the families affected by the Buffett rule will have effective tax rates below that of the middle 20 percent of families.
Roberta Williams, a senior fellow at the Center, says: "The taxes paid by middle-class families are a lot lower than we think they are."
Democratic lawmakers and Democratic Party officials have largely embraced President Barack Obama's advocacy of the Buffett rule, by which millionaires and their billionaire betters would pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal income tax. The 30 percent standard is designed to make sure that the very wealthy pay a higher pecentage of income tax than do any members of the middle-class. The Buffett rule will have no effect on six-figure incomes.
Advocates of the Buffett rule argue that it will help reduce governmental deficit but the best estimate is that it will raise an addtional $47 billion over ten years, a relative pinprick on today's deficit figure.
It is the case that beginning with Ronald Reagan, the top marginal tax rate was significantly reduced and then George W. Bush drastically shifted the federal income tax burden down to those lower on the economic totem pole by giving the lion's share of two major tax cuts to the wealthiest few percent of Americans. From World War II to the Reagan 80s, the top marginal tax rate varied from 70.45 percent to 91 percent. The period after World War II was a time of great economic prosperity and the tax rate system was generally accepted as fair, because so many people were doing well economically and those who were not, were not doing so due to high taxes.
The wealth gap between the very rich and the poor or near-poor was far narrower in the roughly 35-year period after the the Second World War, due partly to high tax rates making it more difficult to accumulate great wealth. The wealth gap started to widen significantly in the Reagan 80s and was accelerated by George W. Bush. The wealthy, however, aren't the only share of the population that is under-taxed, as, generally speaking, when it comes to the federal income tax, under-taxing is nearly universal, illustrated most centrally by the IRS conclusion that in the last year for which data is fully available, only 53 percent of U.S. households paid any federal income tax. Those who try to excuse the non-payers contend that they pay sales tax, property tax and many other taxes. The flaw in this argument is that the 53 percent of payers also pay these other taxes.
The Buffett rule is currently polling very well with the general public, likely because it has the "feel good" effect of making the tax system seem to be fairer; however, the great potential drawback is that the Buffett rule will slow the momentum that has been built up, especially through the Occupy Movement, to have a progressive federal income tax structure with a much higher top marginal tax rate. The best we can hope from President Obama is that he will restore the 39.6 percent top rate by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Given that recent signs of an economic slowdown may mean that at the end of 2012 we might be in a situation similar to the end of 2011, Obama might feel compelled to request another extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. The GOP price would likely be another extension of the Bush tax cuts.
The chief features of a new income tax structure I proposed in a much earlier blog would be: 1) a tax rate structure of 16 percent at the low end and 60 percent at the high end -- Robert Reich has proposed a top rate of 70 percent -- 2) tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income; 3) cut in half the too-generous child care credit; and 4) tax corporations under the provisions in effect in the Eisenhower years, when corporations paid a much larger share of national government revenue. Eliminating the 10 and 15 percent rates, along with cutting the child care credit in half would increase the percentage of households paying income taxes; also, a top rate of 60 or 70 percent would bring the tax rate more in accordance with the actual distribution of income in the nation.
Roberta Williams, a senior fellow at the Center, says: "The taxes paid by middle-class families are a lot lower than we think they are."
Democratic lawmakers and Democratic Party officials have largely embraced President Barack Obama's advocacy of the Buffett rule, by which millionaires and their billionaire betters would pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal income tax. The 30 percent standard is designed to make sure that the very wealthy pay a higher pecentage of income tax than do any members of the middle-class. The Buffett rule will have no effect on six-figure incomes.
Advocates of the Buffett rule argue that it will help reduce governmental deficit but the best estimate is that it will raise an addtional $47 billion over ten years, a relative pinprick on today's deficit figure.
It is the case that beginning with Ronald Reagan, the top marginal tax rate was significantly reduced and then George W. Bush drastically shifted the federal income tax burden down to those lower on the economic totem pole by giving the lion's share of two major tax cuts to the wealthiest few percent of Americans. From World War II to the Reagan 80s, the top marginal tax rate varied from 70.45 percent to 91 percent. The period after World War II was a time of great economic prosperity and the tax rate system was generally accepted as fair, because so many people were doing well economically and those who were not, were not doing so due to high taxes.
The wealth gap between the very rich and the poor or near-poor was far narrower in the roughly 35-year period after the the Second World War, due partly to high tax rates making it more difficult to accumulate great wealth. The wealth gap started to widen significantly in the Reagan 80s and was accelerated by George W. Bush. The wealthy, however, aren't the only share of the population that is under-taxed, as, generally speaking, when it comes to the federal income tax, under-taxing is nearly universal, illustrated most centrally by the IRS conclusion that in the last year for which data is fully available, only 53 percent of U.S. households paid any federal income tax. Those who try to excuse the non-payers contend that they pay sales tax, property tax and many other taxes. The flaw in this argument is that the 53 percent of payers also pay these other taxes.
The Buffett rule is currently polling very well with the general public, likely because it has the "feel good" effect of making the tax system seem to be fairer; however, the great potential drawback is that the Buffett rule will slow the momentum that has been built up, especially through the Occupy Movement, to have a progressive federal income tax structure with a much higher top marginal tax rate. The best we can hope from President Obama is that he will restore the 39.6 percent top rate by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Given that recent signs of an economic slowdown may mean that at the end of 2012 we might be in a situation similar to the end of 2011, Obama might feel compelled to request another extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. The GOP price would likely be another extension of the Bush tax cuts.
The chief features of a new income tax structure I proposed in a much earlier blog would be: 1) a tax rate structure of 16 percent at the low end and 60 percent at the high end -- Robert Reich has proposed a top rate of 70 percent -- 2) tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income; 3) cut in half the too-generous child care credit; and 4) tax corporations under the provisions in effect in the Eisenhower years, when corporations paid a much larger share of national government revenue. Eliminating the 10 and 15 percent rates, along with cutting the child care credit in half would increase the percentage of households paying income taxes; also, a top rate of 60 or 70 percent would bring the tax rate more in accordance with the actual distribution of income in the nation.
Monday, April 9, 2012
The Actions of George W. Bush Leading to Impeachment: Part III
This is the third and final blog on the subject of actions of George W. Bush which should have led to impeachment. I originally sent this piece out on the Peace Action network on November 6. 2007, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged anyone to identify even one action of Bush that should have led to his impeachment.
V. Grey Areas
1) According to United Press International, 300 Special Forces troops were introduced into Iraq shortly before the March 2003 invasion, where they joined Delta forces and CIA paramilitaries already in the country. Introduction of foreign troops into a sovereign state without an invitation is tantamount to an invasion and is thus against international law and the UN Charter.
2) The U.S. tried to blame the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan for the deplorable conditions at Shebanghan Prison: the finding of the bodies of at least 15 Taliban captives, smothered to death near the prison; the suffocation of Taliban captives in airless shipping crates; and the finding of dead Taliban with feet or hands tied, meaning that they had been killed after being captured. A good treatment of U.S. command responsibility in Afghanistan can be found in the December 12, 2002 memo to the Council on Foreign Relations, written by Holly J. Burkhalter for the Physicians for Human Rights. A special report on detainees mistreated in Afghanistan can be found in a late August 2002 issue of Newsweek. Yet another good source is to google Special Forces in Afghanistan and link to "Vietnam Redux."
3) According to the Winter 2002 report by the Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, the INS picked up 1,200 to 2,000 people from Arab, South Asian and Muslim backgrounds. The Justice Department was going to great lengths to keep the immigration proceedings secret. During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush had criticized the Clinton administration for conducting closed immigration hearings.
4) Questionable appropriation of funds:
a) General Tommy Franks used funds not appropriated for that purpose to plan the war on Iraq.
b) Money was secretly expended to individuals to promote Bush administration programs, such as the $240,000 supplied to a talk show host to promote No Child Left Behind.
c) A Pentagon-funded contractor in Iraq used servicemen to write puff pieces under the guise that they were articles written by Iraqi journalists.
5) Malfeasance fostering corruption
a) According to Naomi Klein, an Iraqi reconstruction watchdog, not one additional auditor was provided for in the initial appropriation of over $18 billion for Iraqi reconstruction.
b) A British auditing firm could not find a paper trail for about 20 percent of Iraqi oil money earmarked for reconstruction.
c) Testifying before the House Government Reform Committee on October 4, 2007, auditors for the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction said that the State Department does not know specifically what it received for most of the $1.2 billion in expenditures under its DynCorp contract for the Iraqi Police Training Program. The books were in "disarray."
It is not the case that actions with very destructive outcomes always involve the breaking of specific laws. Operating a government in a very secretive way; having a reckless disregard for checks and balances in government; and being heedless of the effect of your nation's actions on international opinion, constitutes conduct worthy of severe censure, even if no laws are broken.
Speaker Pelosi, the listings of Bush administration wrongdoing or misconduct are illustrative of the iceberg in the ocean, as much more is hidden than is seen. Yet this limited treatment far exceeds your challenge to Ed Schultz that you be advised of one law that President Bush has broken.
V. Grey Areas
1) According to United Press International, 300 Special Forces troops were introduced into Iraq shortly before the March 2003 invasion, where they joined Delta forces and CIA paramilitaries already in the country. Introduction of foreign troops into a sovereign state without an invitation is tantamount to an invasion and is thus against international law and the UN Charter.
2) The U.S. tried to blame the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan for the deplorable conditions at Shebanghan Prison: the finding of the bodies of at least 15 Taliban captives, smothered to death near the prison; the suffocation of Taliban captives in airless shipping crates; and the finding of dead Taliban with feet or hands tied, meaning that they had been killed after being captured. A good treatment of U.S. command responsibility in Afghanistan can be found in the December 12, 2002 memo to the Council on Foreign Relations, written by Holly J. Burkhalter for the Physicians for Human Rights. A special report on detainees mistreated in Afghanistan can be found in a late August 2002 issue of Newsweek. Yet another good source is to google Special Forces in Afghanistan and link to "Vietnam Redux."
3) According to the Winter 2002 report by the Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, the INS picked up 1,200 to 2,000 people from Arab, South Asian and Muslim backgrounds. The Justice Department was going to great lengths to keep the immigration proceedings secret. During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush had criticized the Clinton administration for conducting closed immigration hearings.
4) Questionable appropriation of funds:
a) General Tommy Franks used funds not appropriated for that purpose to plan the war on Iraq.
b) Money was secretly expended to individuals to promote Bush administration programs, such as the $240,000 supplied to a talk show host to promote No Child Left Behind.
c) A Pentagon-funded contractor in Iraq used servicemen to write puff pieces under the guise that they were articles written by Iraqi journalists.
5) Malfeasance fostering corruption
a) According to Naomi Klein, an Iraqi reconstruction watchdog, not one additional auditor was provided for in the initial appropriation of over $18 billion for Iraqi reconstruction.
b) A British auditing firm could not find a paper trail for about 20 percent of Iraqi oil money earmarked for reconstruction.
c) Testifying before the House Government Reform Committee on October 4, 2007, auditors for the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction said that the State Department does not know specifically what it received for most of the $1.2 billion in expenditures under its DynCorp contract for the Iraqi Police Training Program. The books were in "disarray."
It is not the case that actions with very destructive outcomes always involve the breaking of specific laws. Operating a government in a very secretive way; having a reckless disregard for checks and balances in government; and being heedless of the effect of your nation's actions on international opinion, constitutes conduct worthy of severe censure, even if no laws are broken.
Speaker Pelosi, the listings of Bush administration wrongdoing or misconduct are illustrative of the iceberg in the ocean, as much more is hidden than is seen. Yet this limited treatment far exceeds your challenge to Ed Schultz that you be advised of one law that President Bush has broken.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Actions of George W. Bush Leading to Impeachment: Part II
I began this blog by listing violations of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva and Hague Conventions during George W. Bush's presidency. This blog will cover violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. statutes, long-standing legal practice and indiiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
III. Violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Statutes and Long-Standing Legal Practice
1) The invasion of Iraq without a declaration of war violated the U.S.Constitution, which gives the Congress the sole right to declare war.
2) The detention of a U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla, without charges and without access to a lawyer for a considerable time, violated due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
3) Wiretapping without a court order violated the FISA Act of 1978. Ignorance of the law is not a factor, since there is an oft-repeated audio in which George W. Bush assures U.S. citizens thast no one can wiretap without a court order.
4) The use of presidential signing statements was once a purely ceremonial affair without any legislative intent. Ronald Reagan was the first presidient to try to give signing statements a legislative intent and to urge judges to use such statements as a factor in legal rulings. President Bush greatly expanded upon the scope and number of such statements, as brought out by a Boston Globe story specifying 750 of such statements.
The U.S. Supreme Copurt has ruled that the president may participate in the legislative process only by proposing legislation and vetoing/approving bills.
5) Although the firing of eight U.S. attorneys was within President Bush's discretion, as frequently claimed, the fact that no explanations have been provided for individual firings; the fact that those who may have played roles in the firings can't be questioned due to claims of executive privilege; the fact that documents related to the firings are being withheld from Congress; and the fact that pertinent emails have been lost, raises the strong suspicion that the firings were due to the Bush administration's belief that the eight were running their offices in a manner that was insufficiently partisan.
6) The current case of an Interior Department undersecretary doctoring scientific documents is just the latest skirmish in a long-running war against science conducted by the Bush administration, in which the revision of scientific information to downgrade the threat of global warming has been the most repeated offense.
IV. Weapons of Mass and Indiscriminate Destruction
President George W. Bush has inveighed frequently against weapons of mass detrauction but he has not been held to account for the weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction used during his presiidency.
1) The 15,000 pound Daisy-Cutter was ued in Afghanistan beginning in the first week of November 2001 to try to dislodge Taliban troops dug-in to stop a Northern Alliance advance on Kabul. Later, the Daisy-Cutter, along with the B-52 bomber, was used to pulverize caves and tunnels in the White Mountains to prevent their use by Taliban and foreign troops.
The Daisy-Cuitter can incinerate an area equivalent to five football fields.
2) The use of the B-52 bomber to carpet-bomb dug-in Taliban was first advocated by Senator John McCain. The imprecise nature of B-52 bombing was emphasized when a 2,000 pound bomb killed a number of U.S. and anti-Taliban troops on December 5, 2001. B-52s were used in the heavy bombing of the White Mountains, raising serious comcerns about long-term ecological damage.
3) Cluster bombs were heavily used in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Tragically, the boomlets used in Afghanistan were the same color as the food packages being dropped by another arm of the government. The U.S. military claims only a one percent failure rate on the most recent version of the boomlets but failure rates on the older versions are much higher.
Cluster bombs are not banned by international law but there is a strong movement underway by as many as 40 nations to ban them due to their deadly effect on civilian populations.
4) Depleted uranium, with its long-term radiation effect, has become a commonly used munition by the U.S. military due to its superior armor-piercing capability.
5) The U.S. military first denied using white phosphorous or any other chemical in Iraq. It later said that the chemical was used strictly to illuminate insurgent positions in Fallujah. Finally, after U.S. troops in the Fallujah offensive spoke out, the Pentagon acknowledged that white phosphorous was used in combat to drive insugents from their positions so they could be killed by heavy explosives.
Italian RAI state television showed video images of white phosphorous being used in Fallujah; said it was used "in a massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians; and reported on civilians in hospitals with phosphorous burns -- phosphorous can burn to the bone.
Protocol three of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW), prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians and military targets located within a concentration of civilians. The U.S. has ratified only protocols one and two. Ironically, before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration warned that use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis could bring the use of nuclear weapons by the United States.
6) President Bush has not ruled out using nuclear weapons against buried nuclear facilities in Iran. Using Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability software, developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Physicians for Social Responsibility has calculated that using a B83 nuclear bomb, adapted for bunker busting, to attack the nuclear facilities at Ishahan, Iran, would kill three million people with one explosion.
Part III of this blog will focus on grey areas of conduct.
III. Violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Statutes and Long-Standing Legal Practice
1) The invasion of Iraq without a declaration of war violated the U.S.Constitution, which gives the Congress the sole right to declare war.
2) The detention of a U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla, without charges and without access to a lawyer for a considerable time, violated due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
3) Wiretapping without a court order violated the FISA Act of 1978. Ignorance of the law is not a factor, since there is an oft-repeated audio in which George W. Bush assures U.S. citizens thast no one can wiretap without a court order.
4) The use of presidential signing statements was once a purely ceremonial affair without any legislative intent. Ronald Reagan was the first presidient to try to give signing statements a legislative intent and to urge judges to use such statements as a factor in legal rulings. President Bush greatly expanded upon the scope and number of such statements, as brought out by a Boston Globe story specifying 750 of such statements.
The U.S. Supreme Copurt has ruled that the president may participate in the legislative process only by proposing legislation and vetoing/approving bills.
5) Although the firing of eight U.S. attorneys was within President Bush's discretion, as frequently claimed, the fact that no explanations have been provided for individual firings; the fact that those who may have played roles in the firings can't be questioned due to claims of executive privilege; the fact that documents related to the firings are being withheld from Congress; and the fact that pertinent emails have been lost, raises the strong suspicion that the firings were due to the Bush administration's belief that the eight were running their offices in a manner that was insufficiently partisan.
6) The current case of an Interior Department undersecretary doctoring scientific documents is just the latest skirmish in a long-running war against science conducted by the Bush administration, in which the revision of scientific information to downgrade the threat of global warming has been the most repeated offense.
IV. Weapons of Mass and Indiscriminate Destruction
President George W. Bush has inveighed frequently against weapons of mass detrauction but he has not been held to account for the weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction used during his presiidency.
1) The 15,000 pound Daisy-Cutter was ued in Afghanistan beginning in the first week of November 2001 to try to dislodge Taliban troops dug-in to stop a Northern Alliance advance on Kabul. Later, the Daisy-Cutter, along with the B-52 bomber, was used to pulverize caves and tunnels in the White Mountains to prevent their use by Taliban and foreign troops.
The Daisy-Cuitter can incinerate an area equivalent to five football fields.
2) The use of the B-52 bomber to carpet-bomb dug-in Taliban was first advocated by Senator John McCain. The imprecise nature of B-52 bombing was emphasized when a 2,000 pound bomb killed a number of U.S. and anti-Taliban troops on December 5, 2001. B-52s were used in the heavy bombing of the White Mountains, raising serious comcerns about long-term ecological damage.
3) Cluster bombs were heavily used in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Tragically, the boomlets used in Afghanistan were the same color as the food packages being dropped by another arm of the government. The U.S. military claims only a one percent failure rate on the most recent version of the boomlets but failure rates on the older versions are much higher.
Cluster bombs are not banned by international law but there is a strong movement underway by as many as 40 nations to ban them due to their deadly effect on civilian populations.
4) Depleted uranium, with its long-term radiation effect, has become a commonly used munition by the U.S. military due to its superior armor-piercing capability.
5) The U.S. military first denied using white phosphorous or any other chemical in Iraq. It later said that the chemical was used strictly to illuminate insurgent positions in Fallujah. Finally, after U.S. troops in the Fallujah offensive spoke out, the Pentagon acknowledged that white phosphorous was used in combat to drive insugents from their positions so they could be killed by heavy explosives.
Italian RAI state television showed video images of white phosphorous being used in Fallujah; said it was used "in a massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians; and reported on civilians in hospitals with phosphorous burns -- phosphorous can burn to the bone.
Protocol three of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW), prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians and military targets located within a concentration of civilians. The U.S. has ratified only protocols one and two. Ironically, before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration warned that use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis could bring the use of nuclear weapons by the United States.
6) President Bush has not ruled out using nuclear weapons against buried nuclear facilities in Iran. Using Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability software, developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Physicians for Social Responsibility has calculated that using a B83 nuclear bomb, adapted for bunker busting, to attack the nuclear facilities at Ishahan, Iran, would kill three million people with one explosion.
Part III of this blog will focus on grey areas of conduct.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Actions of George W. Bush Leading to Impeachment
In his January 2012 State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama proposed to set up a trade review unit and a business fraud bureau. Later, he issued an executive order establishing a trade bureau, which, I, in a prior blog, argued was an unconstitutional act, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. If the bureau will look at prior trade practices, it will be a violation of Obama's dictum that his administration would not investigate possible high crimes and misdemeanors by George W. Bush and high officials in his administration, because he wanted to look forward, not backward. On November 6, 2007, I circulated a piece detailing many possible crimes committed by Obama's immediate presidential predecessor. Since the piece is fairly long, I will present it in three parts
Speaker Pelosi, you recently told Ed Schultz, on his radio talk show on Air America, that you would welcome anyone providing information about a law that President Bush has broken that should lead to impeachment. The listings below provide specific instances in which laws at the national and international level have been broken, or in which accepted norms of governmental operation have been violated.
I. Violations of the UN Charter
1) The "shock and awe" psychological campaign conducted against Iraq before the March 2003 invasion, complemented by the public threats to use the full force of the U.S. military, violated Article II of the UN Charter, which calls upon Member nations to refrain from threatening the use of force.
2) The invasion of Iraq violated Article 51 of the UN Charter, which limits a claimed right of self-defense to a response to an armed attack.
3) The claim by the United States that it can unilaterally enforce UN resolutions goes against long-standing U.S. practice and bypasses enforcement provisions in the UN Charter.
II. Violations of the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva and Hague Conventions
1) The command responsibility doctrine in the Nuremberg Principles holds that those in positions of command cannot escape responsibility for the actions of subordinates.
2) The seminal document in the paper trail of torture authorization, the Bybee memo, cleared the Justice Department of responsibility for torture and received the imprimatur of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who labeled the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." President Bush holds the command responsibility for this memo.
3) The Rumsfeld memo specifying harsh means of interrogation and the very similar September 2003 memo by the top commander in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, both implicate Bush under the command responsibility principle.
4) Holding detainees without charges or any judicial action violates a basic precept of the Geneva Conventions, by which the status of detainees must be established by competent authority operating within a structure of law.
5) Mistreatment of detainees, up to and including torture, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and in Iraq has been so common a practice and so varied in method that it is difficult to catalog it, but clearly, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions has been so tattered and torn as to have ceased to be a restraint on U.S. action under President Bush.
6) The practice of extraordinary rendition, by which detainees are sent to other countries for interrogation, without judicial process, may not technically violate the Geneva Conventions, but it is an abhorrent act that violates the spirit of the Conventions. Although the United States insists it gets assurances that the receiving countries will not practice torture, there is no practical way to check on the fulfillment of the promises. According to an article on detainee mistreatment in the December 26, 2002 Washington Post, at least 100 suspects were sent to other countries by the United States.
7) Changing the laws of an occupied country, as was done by the Coalition Provisional Authority, especially under Order 39, which allows extensive penetration of the Iraqi economy by foreign corporations, violates the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual, "The Law of Land Warfare."
The next blog will cover violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. statutes and indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker Pelosi, you recently told Ed Schultz, on his radio talk show on Air America, that you would welcome anyone providing information about a law that President Bush has broken that should lead to impeachment. The listings below provide specific instances in which laws at the national and international level have been broken, or in which accepted norms of governmental operation have been violated.
I. Violations of the UN Charter
1) The "shock and awe" psychological campaign conducted against Iraq before the March 2003 invasion, complemented by the public threats to use the full force of the U.S. military, violated Article II of the UN Charter, which calls upon Member nations to refrain from threatening the use of force.
2) The invasion of Iraq violated Article 51 of the UN Charter, which limits a claimed right of self-defense to a response to an armed attack.
3) The claim by the United States that it can unilaterally enforce UN resolutions goes against long-standing U.S. practice and bypasses enforcement provisions in the UN Charter.
II. Violations of the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva and Hague Conventions
1) The command responsibility doctrine in the Nuremberg Principles holds that those in positions of command cannot escape responsibility for the actions of subordinates.
2) The seminal document in the paper trail of torture authorization, the Bybee memo, cleared the Justice Department of responsibility for torture and received the imprimatur of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who labeled the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." President Bush holds the command responsibility for this memo.
3) The Rumsfeld memo specifying harsh means of interrogation and the very similar September 2003 memo by the top commander in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, both implicate Bush under the command responsibility principle.
4) Holding detainees without charges or any judicial action violates a basic precept of the Geneva Conventions, by which the status of detainees must be established by competent authority operating within a structure of law.
5) Mistreatment of detainees, up to and including torture, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and in Iraq has been so common a practice and so varied in method that it is difficult to catalog it, but clearly, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions has been so tattered and torn as to have ceased to be a restraint on U.S. action under President Bush.
6) The practice of extraordinary rendition, by which detainees are sent to other countries for interrogation, without judicial process, may not technically violate the Geneva Conventions, but it is an abhorrent act that violates the spirit of the Conventions. Although the United States insists it gets assurances that the receiving countries will not practice torture, there is no practical way to check on the fulfillment of the promises. According to an article on detainee mistreatment in the December 26, 2002 Washington Post, at least 100 suspects were sent to other countries by the United States.
7) Changing the laws of an occupied country, as was done by the Coalition Provisional Authority, especially under Order 39, which allows extensive penetration of the Iraqi economy by foreign corporations, violates the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual, "The Law of Land Warfare."
The next blog will cover violations of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. statutes and indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Blind Spot in the Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Show
This past Saturday, my wife and I attended the Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Show, held in the Popejoy Theater at the University of New Mexico. Part of the show's purpose is to bolster the re-election prospects of President Barack Obama. Two of the main arguments for the Obama re-election are: 1) he has done some good things despite enormous political opposition; and 2) more progressive Democrats must be elected to Congress to help him do what he really wants to do.
President Barack Obama is not a liberal or a progressive: a more accurate labeling of him might be a pragmatic technocrat. The things that he has done in his first term which might be labeled liberal or progressive are largely the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the economic stimulus package, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the two Supreme Court appointees. He did withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq but that was on the schedule set up by George W. Bush. The negative or non-progressive side of the ledger is much longer. He has embraced a bloated Pentagon, supports an expensive buildup of nuclear weapons capability; has failed to trim the sprawling intelligence empire; has adopted most of the retrograde civil liberties policies of the Bush administration; has extended the Bush tax cuts; has failed to propose a progressive tax system of his own; and has substantially increased the troop levels in Afghanistan without a declared ending date to the war.
A much better alternative to the Affordable Care Act would have been single-payer but he refused to even put it on the table, much as he sabotaged a robust public option. Even the economic stimulus package was flawed by having too large a component of tax cuts and not having a follow-up to extend its stimulative effect.
As for electing progressive Democrats lower on the ticket, it is hard to elect progressives when the head of the party has not articulated even a sliver of a progressive agenda, beyond proposing a surcharge on millionaires that will generate only $47 billion in revenue over ten years. On a personal note, I have received six fundraising letters signed by either Michelle or Barack Obama, and none of them propose a single policy program for the future.
It is right and proper to heap ridicule on the Republican presidential contenders but it is so sad and tragic that the alternative to them is so tragically flawed.
President Barack Obama is not a liberal or a progressive: a more accurate labeling of him might be a pragmatic technocrat. The things that he has done in his first term which might be labeled liberal or progressive are largely the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the economic stimulus package, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the two Supreme Court appointees. He did withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq but that was on the schedule set up by George W. Bush. The negative or non-progressive side of the ledger is much longer. He has embraced a bloated Pentagon, supports an expensive buildup of nuclear weapons capability; has failed to trim the sprawling intelligence empire; has adopted most of the retrograde civil liberties policies of the Bush administration; has extended the Bush tax cuts; has failed to propose a progressive tax system of his own; and has substantially increased the troop levels in Afghanistan without a declared ending date to the war.
A much better alternative to the Affordable Care Act would have been single-payer but he refused to even put it on the table, much as he sabotaged a robust public option. Even the economic stimulus package was flawed by having too large a component of tax cuts and not having a follow-up to extend its stimulative effect.
As for electing progressive Democrats lower on the ticket, it is hard to elect progressives when the head of the party has not articulated even a sliver of a progressive agenda, beyond proposing a surcharge on millionaires that will generate only $47 billion in revenue over ten years. On a personal note, I have received six fundraising letters signed by either Michelle or Barack Obama, and none of them propose a single policy program for the future.
It is right and proper to heap ridicule on the Republican presidential contenders but it is so sad and tragic that the alternative to them is so tragically flawed.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Obama "Flexibility" on Missile Defense Wrongly Interpreted
While President Barack Obama was having a private talk with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, he apparently didn't know that his microphone was on and he told Medvedev that after his "last" election was over he would have "more flexibility" on the Eastern European missile defense system. His claim was jumped all over, mostly by conservative commentators, whose main complaint was the Obama should have demanded a price for any U.S. concession.
Since the anti-missile shield is intensely hated by the Russian government, Obama, in effect, was saying that if he got re-elected he would have more room to either trim the shield or remove it. Conservative critics fumed that he should have traded a concession on the shield for a more cooperative attitude on Syria on the part of the Russians. Critics of Obama have focused on the wrong issue: the anti-missile shield is a carry-over from the George W. Bush delusional belief that if Iran develops a nuclear missile capability it might fire missiles toward Eastern European countries. The only change Obama made in the Bush proposal is that he changed it from a defense against long-range to short-range missiles.
It was a mistake for Presiident Barack Obama to have adopted a much more modest version of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars fantrasy. Obama should begin a retreat from his embrace of anti-missile missiles. If he can get concessions from Russia that would be in the foreign policy interest of the United States that would be supportable; however, the important needed change in policy is to prepare the political ground for the removal of the Eastern European anti-missile shield and to stop the waste of money on anti-missile missiles.
Since the anti-missile shield is intensely hated by the Russian government, Obama, in effect, was saying that if he got re-elected he would have more room to either trim the shield or remove it. Conservative critics fumed that he should have traded a concession on the shield for a more cooperative attitude on Syria on the part of the Russians. Critics of Obama have focused on the wrong issue: the anti-missile shield is a carry-over from the George W. Bush delusional belief that if Iran develops a nuclear missile capability it might fire missiles toward Eastern European countries. The only change Obama made in the Bush proposal is that he changed it from a defense against long-range to short-range missiles.
It was a mistake for Presiident Barack Obama to have adopted a much more modest version of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars fantrasy. Obama should begin a retreat from his embrace of anti-missile missiles. If he can get concessions from Russia that would be in the foreign policy interest of the United States that would be supportable; however, the important needed change in policy is to prepare the political ground for the removal of the Eastern European anti-missile shield and to stop the waste of money on anti-missile missiles.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Trayvon Martin: The Blaming the Victim Stage
Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old black teenager who was shot to death by a reputed Neighborhood Watch captain named George Zimmerman. The shooting, which happened about a month ago, has now reached the stage of "Blame the Victim." Trayvon's mother has said that her son's life has been destroyed and now the attempt is being made to destroy his reputation. About the only thing of any substance that has been brought out is that traces of marijuana were found in his backpack in school but that holds no relevance to a claim that Trayvon Martin may have attacked George Zimmerman. Very recently, the charge has been made that Trayvon swung at a bus driver. That charge seems to rest entirely on an email from a cousin who is apparently responding to an email from Trayvon in which he may have said something about taking a swing at a bus driver. There is apparently no report of such an incident by a bus driver, nor is there any police report. Trayvon and his cousin may have been acting out a psychodrama of no real substance.
The other attempt to blacken the image of Trayvon Martin and justify the shooting is the circulation of a picture of a black teenager in baggy pants, "showing the finger." The circulated picture has been identified as that of another teenager. The only aspect of Trayvon Martin's history that might be relevant to the shooting is if he had a record of violence against others and thus may have initiated a physical conflict with Zimmerman. No such record has surfaced.
The story surfacing in the past week or so is that Trayvon Martin jumped George Zimmerman from the back, toppled him and repeatedly drove his face into the pavement, breaking his nose and bloodying his face. Allegedly, Trayvon attempted to get Zimmerman's gun.
The story raises some questions. I don't recall an initial report of a bloody-faced Zimmerman with a broken nose.* Does Zimmerman have a broken nose? Does his face show signs of bruising? Two eyewitnesses who saw and heard the shooting, went outside and saw George Zimmerman with his hands on the back of the prone Trayvon Martin. One of the eyewitnesses said they were within about 10 feet of Trayvon. Neither one noticed anything unusual about Zimmerman's face but one eyewitness said it was getting dark and the lighting was not good.
It is hard to believe that George Zimmerman would have allowed Trayvon Martin to get the jump on him. Zimmerman said in his call to the police that the guy he had observed seemed to be "up to no good." One probably would not totally turn his/her back on someone who was "up to no good." without turning the head around to make sure that this potentially dangerous person did not attack from the back. Even if Zimmerman was attacked and then somehow got the upper hand, was it still necessary to shoot to kill his attacker? He had his gun out and Trayvon Martin was unarmed. With the huge advantage George Zimmerman had, would the teenager have still presented such a threat to him that it was necessary to shoot to kill?
Racial stereotyping entered this tragic story when Geraldo Rivera raised the issue of Trayvon wearing a hoodie and the hoodie made him appear to be more dangerous: to many people a hoodie conveys an image of black teenagers filled with menacing violence. A number of years ago, fear was inflamed by reports of a new generation of super-predator young people posing a threat of violence to communities across the nation.
So, besides the racial element, why might there be such a major effort being made to blame Trayvon Martin for initiating his own death and exonerating his killer? A motivation that comes to mind is the fear that "Stand Your Ground" laws might be overturned because of the Martin case. The National Rifle Association was a major driving force behind the Florida law and other similar laws in other states; therefore, the more it can promote the idea that the use of a firearm is a legitimate way to end what is perceived as a potentially dangerous situation, the better it will be for gun sales. Fear is a great generator of gun sales and if people feel not only feel safer carrying a gun, but also rationalize that they can successfully claim self-defense if they falsely perceive a threat to them, they will be more inclined to arm themselves.
I have heard that the number of claimed self-defense shootings has tripled since "Stand Your Ground" was enacted but have not seen any law enforcement statistics. It would seem that making it easier to claim self-dense in a fatal shooting imposes a big burden on a prosecutor when someone is able to make an intended killing look like self-defense.
In regard to the Sanford Police Department, standard police procedure is to interview everyone who may have seen or heard anything in a case of apparent murder. The Sanford police did not interview the many people who apparently had visual or auditory information about the interaction between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, nor did they do a toxicology test on Zimmerman, although they did one on Martin.
It is a part of the deteriorated state of U.S. society that when firearms are such a major component of the high level of violence in the nation that we should be promoting the greater availability of firearms.
* It has been mystifying to me why there were no local police reports of taking into custody a badly bruised and battered George Zimmerman. And if Zimmerman was in such bad shape because of assault by Trayvon Martin, why didn't the media pick up on that condition weeks ago? Is this a case of major media malfeasance?
I raised questions earlier in this blog about whether or not George Zimmerman has a broken nose and does his face show signs of bruising. Now it appears I have my answer. On this morning's 5 a.m. (Mountain time) CNN newscast, the report was that police videos don't show any apparent damage to George Zimmerman's face, including the nose. The same newscast said that a New York Police Department person -- I assume for credibility reasons it was a person with medical credentials -- had carefully examined photos of Zimmerman taken after he was taken into custody. The examiner could find no abrasions or contusions on the face.
The 6 a.m. CNN newscast said that ABC News has published pictures of George Zimmerman getting out of a police cruiser at the police station. There is no visible damage to the face and no discoloration of his clothing indicating the presence of blood.
CNN newscasts also reported this morning that George Zimmerman's father is alleging that Trayvon Martin launched a vicious attack on his son and threatened to kill him. The threat to kill claim could only have come from George Zimmerman and cannot be corroborated.
The other attempt to blacken the image of Trayvon Martin and justify the shooting is the circulation of a picture of a black teenager in baggy pants, "showing the finger." The circulated picture has been identified as that of another teenager. The only aspect of Trayvon Martin's history that might be relevant to the shooting is if he had a record of violence against others and thus may have initiated a physical conflict with Zimmerman. No such record has surfaced.
The story surfacing in the past week or so is that Trayvon Martin jumped George Zimmerman from the back, toppled him and repeatedly drove his face into the pavement, breaking his nose and bloodying his face. Allegedly, Trayvon attempted to get Zimmerman's gun.
The story raises some questions. I don't recall an initial report of a bloody-faced Zimmerman with a broken nose.* Does Zimmerman have a broken nose? Does his face show signs of bruising? Two eyewitnesses who saw and heard the shooting, went outside and saw George Zimmerman with his hands on the back of the prone Trayvon Martin. One of the eyewitnesses said they were within about 10 feet of Trayvon. Neither one noticed anything unusual about Zimmerman's face but one eyewitness said it was getting dark and the lighting was not good.
It is hard to believe that George Zimmerman would have allowed Trayvon Martin to get the jump on him. Zimmerman said in his call to the police that the guy he had observed seemed to be "up to no good." One probably would not totally turn his/her back on someone who was "up to no good." without turning the head around to make sure that this potentially dangerous person did not attack from the back. Even if Zimmerman was attacked and then somehow got the upper hand, was it still necessary to shoot to kill his attacker? He had his gun out and Trayvon Martin was unarmed. With the huge advantage George Zimmerman had, would the teenager have still presented such a threat to him that it was necessary to shoot to kill?
Racial stereotyping entered this tragic story when Geraldo Rivera raised the issue of Trayvon wearing a hoodie and the hoodie made him appear to be more dangerous: to many people a hoodie conveys an image of black teenagers filled with menacing violence. A number of years ago, fear was inflamed by reports of a new generation of super-predator young people posing a threat of violence to communities across the nation.
So, besides the racial element, why might there be such a major effort being made to blame Trayvon Martin for initiating his own death and exonerating his killer? A motivation that comes to mind is the fear that "Stand Your Ground" laws might be overturned because of the Martin case. The National Rifle Association was a major driving force behind the Florida law and other similar laws in other states; therefore, the more it can promote the idea that the use of a firearm is a legitimate way to end what is perceived as a potentially dangerous situation, the better it will be for gun sales. Fear is a great generator of gun sales and if people feel not only feel safer carrying a gun, but also rationalize that they can successfully claim self-defense if they falsely perceive a threat to them, they will be more inclined to arm themselves.
I have heard that the number of claimed self-defense shootings has tripled since "Stand Your Ground" was enacted but have not seen any law enforcement statistics. It would seem that making it easier to claim self-dense in a fatal shooting imposes a big burden on a prosecutor when someone is able to make an intended killing look like self-defense.
In regard to the Sanford Police Department, standard police procedure is to interview everyone who may have seen or heard anything in a case of apparent murder. The Sanford police did not interview the many people who apparently had visual or auditory information about the interaction between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, nor did they do a toxicology test on Zimmerman, although they did one on Martin.
It is a part of the deteriorated state of U.S. society that when firearms are such a major component of the high level of violence in the nation that we should be promoting the greater availability of firearms.
* It has been mystifying to me why there were no local police reports of taking into custody a badly bruised and battered George Zimmerman. And if Zimmerman was in such bad shape because of assault by Trayvon Martin, why didn't the media pick up on that condition weeks ago? Is this a case of major media malfeasance?
I raised questions earlier in this blog about whether or not George Zimmerman has a broken nose and does his face show signs of bruising. Now it appears I have my answer. On this morning's 5 a.m. (Mountain time) CNN newscast, the report was that police videos don't show any apparent damage to George Zimmerman's face, including the nose. The same newscast said that a New York Police Department person -- I assume for credibility reasons it was a person with medical credentials -- had carefully examined photos of Zimmerman taken after he was taken into custody. The examiner could find no abrasions or contusions on the face.
The 6 a.m. CNN newscast said that ABC News has published pictures of George Zimmerman getting out of a police cruiser at the police station. There is no visible damage to the face and no discoloration of his clothing indicating the presence of blood.
CNN newscasts also reported this morning that George Zimmerman's father is alleging that Trayvon Martin launched a vicious attack on his son and threatened to kill him. The threat to kill claim could only have come from George Zimmerman and cannot be corroborated.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Future Nuclear Weapons Spending Contradicts Obama's World View
During the Asian summit meeting ending today, one of the subjects was how to secure loose nuclear materials. Although securing such materials is a very laudable undertaking, it will not take us to the nuclear weapons-free world that President Obama envisioned in a Middle East speech early in his presidency. I am indebted to the Peace Action New York State's fact sheets on nuclear weapons spending to show how far we are diverging from the vision that Obama presented.
CMRR
The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory is designed to replace the existing CMR building, which is designed to perform technical analyses on materials, particularly the plutonium used in U.S. nuclear weapons. President Obama zeroed it out of the FY 2013 budget.
CMRR will not help with warhead maintenance: seven of the eight warhead types in the stockpile are in or will soon undergo major Life Extension Programs (LEPs).
Not building the CMRR nuclear facility could save $3-5 billion. Not expanding pit production could save tens of billions more over the long term. Pits are the triggers to ignite the plutonium in a nuclear bomb.
The Project will not create any new jobs, because employees will be shifted over from the old facility.
MOX Fuel
The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX plant) was originally designed to reduce quantities of excess U.S. and Russian weapons-grade plutonium. The centerpiece is the Savannah River site near Aiken, South Carolina.
The Department of Energy has stated that the current projected life-cycle costs of the program have increased to $7.1 billion.
There is currently no U.S. customer for MOX fuel. MOX increases proliferation dangers and is a more expensive option for disposing of plutonium than dry cask storage. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is a more effective non-proliferation program.
LRPB
The U.S. currently has a fleet of nuclear-capable strategic bombers that will last well into the 2030s. Delaying the Long Range Penetrating Bomber (LRPB) for ten years would save at least $3.7 billion in research and development costs.Canceling it would save $50 billion in procurement costs alone. The five-year cost is $6.3 billion. The LRPB was not in the 2012 Aircraft Procurement Plan projecting ten years ahead. Its mission would be dropping nuclear gravity bombs.
There are now 76 B-52 Hs and 18 B-2s.Through 2016 the plan is to spend an additional $1.1 billion for the B-52s and $2.9 billion for the B-2s, and eventually purchase 80-100 LRPBs. $30 billion in procurement costs could be saved if the 30-year LRPB program was canceled.
SSBNCX
The Navy's nuclear-capable ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet is currently comprised of 14 Ohio class submarines, of which 12 are operational and two are in refueling overhaul at any given time. The Ohio class submarines will be retired between 2027 and 2040.
The Navy has plans to build 12 new nuclear-capable submarines (SSBNCX) over the next 30 years as replacements. They are intended to be operational through 2070. There is $565 million in the FY2013 budget for the SSBNCX. According to the Ploughshares Fund, cutting procurement to eight subs would save $27 billion over ten years, or $123 billion over the 50-year life of the program. The SSBNCX will cost $347 billion over its lifetime.
Eight subs of the Ohio class can carry 192 Trident II D-5 missiles with 1,536 warheads; and eight of the new subs, with 16 tubes, could carry 128 missiles with 1,024 warheads.
The SSBNCX and the other future nuclear weapons spending contradicts President Obama's pledge to work toward a nuclear weapons-free world; also, the building programs violate the provision in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires signatory states to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
CMRR
The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory is designed to replace the existing CMR building, which is designed to perform technical analyses on materials, particularly the plutonium used in U.S. nuclear weapons. President Obama zeroed it out of the FY 2013 budget.
CMRR will not help with warhead maintenance: seven of the eight warhead types in the stockpile are in or will soon undergo major Life Extension Programs (LEPs).
Not building the CMRR nuclear facility could save $3-5 billion. Not expanding pit production could save tens of billions more over the long term. Pits are the triggers to ignite the plutonium in a nuclear bomb.
The Project will not create any new jobs, because employees will be shifted over from the old facility.
MOX Fuel
The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX plant) was originally designed to reduce quantities of excess U.S. and Russian weapons-grade plutonium. The centerpiece is the Savannah River site near Aiken, South Carolina.
The Department of Energy has stated that the current projected life-cycle costs of the program have increased to $7.1 billion.
There is currently no U.S. customer for MOX fuel. MOX increases proliferation dangers and is a more expensive option for disposing of plutonium than dry cask storage. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is a more effective non-proliferation program.
LRPB
The U.S. currently has a fleet of nuclear-capable strategic bombers that will last well into the 2030s. Delaying the Long Range Penetrating Bomber (LRPB) for ten years would save at least $3.7 billion in research and development costs.Canceling it would save $50 billion in procurement costs alone. The five-year cost is $6.3 billion. The LRPB was not in the 2012 Aircraft Procurement Plan projecting ten years ahead. Its mission would be dropping nuclear gravity bombs.
There are now 76 B-52 Hs and 18 B-2s.Through 2016 the plan is to spend an additional $1.1 billion for the B-52s and $2.9 billion for the B-2s, and eventually purchase 80-100 LRPBs. $30 billion in procurement costs could be saved if the 30-year LRPB program was canceled.
SSBNCX
The Navy's nuclear-capable ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet is currently comprised of 14 Ohio class submarines, of which 12 are operational and two are in refueling overhaul at any given time. The Ohio class submarines will be retired between 2027 and 2040.
The Navy has plans to build 12 new nuclear-capable submarines (SSBNCX) over the next 30 years as replacements. They are intended to be operational through 2070. There is $565 million in the FY2013 budget for the SSBNCX. According to the Ploughshares Fund, cutting procurement to eight subs would save $27 billion over ten years, or $123 billion over the 50-year life of the program. The SSBNCX will cost $347 billion over its lifetime.
Eight subs of the Ohio class can carry 192 Trident II D-5 missiles with 1,536 warheads; and eight of the new subs, with 16 tubes, could carry 128 missiles with 1,024 warheads.
The SSBNCX and the other future nuclear weapons spending contradicts President Obama's pledge to work toward a nuclear weapons-free world; also, the building programs violate the provision in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires signatory states to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Friday, March 23, 2012
"Murder Is Legal," Says the Attorney General
The title of this blog is the one used by David Swanson, who wrote War Is a Lie and who writes frequently on peace and justice issues. I generally read Swanson in the Oregon Peaceworks newsletter. Swanson takes Attorney General Eric Holder to task for his many questionable and even hard-to-believe assertions made in his March 5 speech at the Chicago branch of the Northwestern Law School.
David Swanson begins his piece by belittling Holder's conception of war: Holder is not talking about a war that looks like a war; he is talking about a war "that is everywhere all the time."
Swanson contrasts Holder's view that military commissions have been successfully reformed with the view of the former chief prosecutor of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay prison, who has said that the "decision to use both legal settings is a mistake. It will establish a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions. This will only perpetuate the perception that Guantanamo and justice are mutually exclusive."
Holder said that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) "mandated that a narrow category of al Qaeda terrorist suspects be placed in temporary custody." Swanson counters that President Obama altered the NDAA with an unconstitutional signing statement, having the NDAA apply to the largely non-Al Qaeda prisoners held in Afghanistan.
Holder argues that because the United States is in armed conflict, it is authorized to use force against any enemy belligerents under international law. Swanson's counter-argument is that the 2001 authorization to use force resolution violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution. He says: "No international law recognizes secret global war without limitations in time or space."
Another claim made by Eric Holder in his March 5 speech is that the United States is at war "with a stateless enemy prone to shifting operations from country to country." I would say that if this is true, there is no way to identify the enemy and our identifications of the enemy will shift over time.
Eric Holder assured his listeners that the president will only kill someone in a foreign land if that country will not kill someone for him and that constitutes "respect for another country's sovereignty," which is about as ridiculous a way of showing respect as can be imagined. Also, Holder contends that a kill order from Obama does not violate the executive order banning assassinations because Obama would only kill those who constitute an imminent threat and U.S. citizens are not immune from being targeted. In reply, David Swanson wonders who knew the "the president alone can give you due process without explaining it to anyone else." Similarly, Swanson is very skeptical of Holder's claim of "robust oversight," because "informing a handful of Congress members, and no doubt forbidding them to report what they are told, does not create Congressional oversight."
Looking overall at the specious claims made by Attorney General Eric Holder in his March 5 speech to justify the war the Obama administration is waging against Al Qaeda and "associated forces," there are ample grounds to relieve Holder of his position as soon as possible; however, there is no reason to believe that he is not representing the positions of the Obama administration.
David Swanson begins his piece by belittling Holder's conception of war: Holder is not talking about a war that looks like a war; he is talking about a war "that is everywhere all the time."
Swanson contrasts Holder's view that military commissions have been successfully reformed with the view of the former chief prosecutor of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay prison, who has said that the "decision to use both legal settings is a mistake. It will establish a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions. This will only perpetuate the perception that Guantanamo and justice are mutually exclusive."
Holder said that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) "mandated that a narrow category of al Qaeda terrorist suspects be placed in temporary custody." Swanson counters that President Obama altered the NDAA with an unconstitutional signing statement, having the NDAA apply to the largely non-Al Qaeda prisoners held in Afghanistan.
Holder argues that because the United States is in armed conflict, it is authorized to use force against any enemy belligerents under international law. Swanson's counter-argument is that the 2001 authorization to use force resolution violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution. He says: "No international law recognizes secret global war without limitations in time or space."
Another claim made by Eric Holder in his March 5 speech is that the United States is at war "with a stateless enemy prone to shifting operations from country to country." I would say that if this is true, there is no way to identify the enemy and our identifications of the enemy will shift over time.
Eric Holder assured his listeners that the president will only kill someone in a foreign land if that country will not kill someone for him and that constitutes "respect for another country's sovereignty," which is about as ridiculous a way of showing respect as can be imagined. Also, Holder contends that a kill order from Obama does not violate the executive order banning assassinations because Obama would only kill those who constitute an imminent threat and U.S. citizens are not immune from being targeted. In reply, David Swanson wonders who knew the "the president alone can give you due process without explaining it to anyone else." Similarly, Swanson is very skeptical of Holder's claim of "robust oversight," because "informing a handful of Congress members, and no doubt forbidding them to report what they are told, does not create Congressional oversight."
Looking overall at the specious claims made by Attorney General Eric Holder in his March 5 speech to justify the war the Obama administration is waging against Al Qaeda and "associated forces," there are ample grounds to relieve Holder of his position as soon as possible; however, there is no reason to believe that he is not representing the positions of the Obama administration.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Guantanamo: With Us for the Indefinite Future
When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), he virtually guaranteed that the Guantanamo Bay prison will be with us for the indefinite future. So the Obama campaign pledge to close Guantanamo within one year of becoming president, which looked so easy to fulfill, because Guantanamo had become such a despised chamber of horrors internationally and an acute embarrassment to the U.S. public, is now a blown opportunity.
Provisions of the NDAA include a ban on any transfer of Guantanamo detainees to a U.S. prison, even for criminal trial, and the NDAA radically restricts the president's authority to transfer detainees to foreign countries. What this means is that more than half of the remaining detainees -- 89 of 171 -- who have been fully cleared by a joint review, will remain in limbo at Guantanamo, forming a continuing witness to the mockery the U.S. has made of the rule of law.
A conspiracy theorist could make a good case that the Congress, the courts and the general public -- with an assist from a blundering president -- have joined in a conspiracy to keep Guantanamo as an ongoing black mark on American jurisprudence. The DC Circuit Court allows indefinite detention based on unreliable intelligence reports, while denying the detainees an opportunity to confront or rebut the reports. The U.S. Supreme Court has squandered the good press it got for reintroducing the rule of law to Guantanamo by declining to intervene to give real force to prior rulings. We now know how badly the Hamdi decision was written, when both sides in the Senate debate over whether U.S. citizens should be excluded from the reach of the NDAA, cited Hamdi as buttressing their respective arguments.
President Obama was earlier depicted in this blog piece as "blundering;" however, his actions in blocking all efforts at accountability for the abuses committed at Guantanamo, border or even reach the level of obstruction of justice.
The final actor in this tabloid of a de facto, though not actual conspiracy, is the general public, which 60 percent in a recent CNN poll favored keeping open, must be attributed in part to the failure of President Obama to make a compelling case either to Congress or the public why it is important to close Guantanamo and what the prison symbolized.
Provisions of the NDAA include a ban on any transfer of Guantanamo detainees to a U.S. prison, even for criminal trial, and the NDAA radically restricts the president's authority to transfer detainees to foreign countries. What this means is that more than half of the remaining detainees -- 89 of 171 -- who have been fully cleared by a joint review, will remain in limbo at Guantanamo, forming a continuing witness to the mockery the U.S. has made of the rule of law.
A conspiracy theorist could make a good case that the Congress, the courts and the general public -- with an assist from a blundering president -- have joined in a conspiracy to keep Guantanamo as an ongoing black mark on American jurisprudence. The DC Circuit Court allows indefinite detention based on unreliable intelligence reports, while denying the detainees an opportunity to confront or rebut the reports. The U.S. Supreme Court has squandered the good press it got for reintroducing the rule of law to Guantanamo by declining to intervene to give real force to prior rulings. We now know how badly the Hamdi decision was written, when both sides in the Senate debate over whether U.S. citizens should be excluded from the reach of the NDAA, cited Hamdi as buttressing their respective arguments.
President Obama was earlier depicted in this blog piece as "blundering;" however, his actions in blocking all efforts at accountability for the abuses committed at Guantanamo, border or even reach the level of obstruction of justice.
The final actor in this tabloid of a de facto, though not actual conspiracy, is the general public, which 60 percent in a recent CNN poll favored keeping open, must be attributed in part to the failure of President Obama to make a compelling case either to Congress or the public why it is important to close Guantanamo and what the prison symbolized.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Constitution-Thrashing, Don't Bank on the Bomb and an Update on Bundling
Thrashing the Constitution
President Barack Obama issued an executive order on February 28, 2012, establishing the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center. The power to regulate commerce is exclusive to Congress. The president's power to see that the "Laws be faithfully executed" does not give him the power to regulate commerce. Creating a bureau to do so is a legislative function .
Frustration with getting desired legislation through a House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans and a grid-locked Senate has induced Obama to try to use executive orders in a "We Can't Wait" campaign to achieve his ends. Much as he has tried to emulate Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is using signing statements to restrict legislation, the danger is that Obama will play fast and loose with executive orders.
Don't Bank on the Bomb
On March 5, 2012, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) identified more than 300 banks, pension funds, insurance companies and asset managers in 30 countries with substantial investments in nuclear arms producers. The 180-page study, Don't Bank on the Bomb: The Global Financing of Nuclear Weapons Producers, provides details of financial transactions with 20 companies that are heavily involved in the manufacture, maintenance and modernization of U.S., British, French and Indian nuclear forces.
Desmond Tutu has called for financial institutions to "do the right thing and assist, rather than impede efforts to eliminate the threat of radioactive incineration."
Nuclear-armed nations spend in excess of US $100 billion each year maintaining and modernizing their nuclear forces, according to the report. Of the 322 institutions identified in the report, roughly half are based in the United States.
Obama Administration Jobs for Bundlers
Barack Obama campaigned on "the most sweeping ethics reform in history" in his presidential campaign, yet, more than half of Obama's biggest fundraisers have been appointed to administration jobs. At least 24 of Obama's bundlers* have been given posts as foreign ambassadors, including such plum postings as Finland, Australia and Portugal. In a previous blog I noted that major fundraisers have been posted to Japan, France and Britain.
The Foreign Service Act of 1980 states that "contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission." Fifty-nine of Obama's ambassadorial appointees are not Foreign Service officers -- 40 percent are bundlers. ( Source is an article titled "The Influence Industry" in the March 7, 2012 Washington Post.)
* Bundlers are fundraisers who gather together large contributions from wealthy donors.
President Barack Obama issued an executive order on February 28, 2012, establishing the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center. The power to regulate commerce is exclusive to Congress. The president's power to see that the "Laws be faithfully executed" does not give him the power to regulate commerce. Creating a bureau to do so is a legislative function .
Frustration with getting desired legislation through a House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans and a grid-locked Senate has induced Obama to try to use executive orders in a "We Can't Wait" campaign to achieve his ends. Much as he has tried to emulate Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is using signing statements to restrict legislation, the danger is that Obama will play fast and loose with executive orders.
Don't Bank on the Bomb
On March 5, 2012, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) identified more than 300 banks, pension funds, insurance companies and asset managers in 30 countries with substantial investments in nuclear arms producers. The 180-page study, Don't Bank on the Bomb: The Global Financing of Nuclear Weapons Producers, provides details of financial transactions with 20 companies that are heavily involved in the manufacture, maintenance and modernization of U.S., British, French and Indian nuclear forces.
Desmond Tutu has called for financial institutions to "do the right thing and assist, rather than impede efforts to eliminate the threat of radioactive incineration."
Nuclear-armed nations spend in excess of US $100 billion each year maintaining and modernizing their nuclear forces, according to the report. Of the 322 institutions identified in the report, roughly half are based in the United States.
Obama Administration Jobs for Bundlers
Barack Obama campaigned on "the most sweeping ethics reform in history" in his presidential campaign, yet, more than half of Obama's biggest fundraisers have been appointed to administration jobs. At least 24 of Obama's bundlers* have been given posts as foreign ambassadors, including such plum postings as Finland, Australia and Portugal. In a previous blog I noted that major fundraisers have been posted to Japan, France and Britain.
The Foreign Service Act of 1980 states that "contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission." Fifty-nine of Obama's ambassadorial appointees are not Foreign Service officers -- 40 percent are bundlers. ( Source is an article titled "The Influence Industry" in the March 7, 2012 Washington Post.)
* Bundlers are fundraisers who gather together large contributions from wealthy donors.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Eric Holder's Curious Reading of the Constitution
The common understanding of the due process language in the U.S. Constitution is that the basic elements are a trial, the right to be informed of the charges against you, and the right to face your accuser. Attorney General Eric Holder has a different, even curious interpretation of the Constitution. Speaking at Northwestern Law School on March 5, Holder said: "'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." What Holder seems to be saying is that, at least in regard to terrorism, all that is constitutionally required is a process, no matter how secretive and flimsy in nature.
President Barack Obama has assumed the power to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen, a step-up in power that even the law-adverse George W. Bush did not venture to assume. Reuters has said that the decision to assassinate would be based on a "kill or capture list" drawn up by a "secretive panel of senior government officials." The Justice Department has responded to an ACLU request for information about the assassination program by neither confirming nor denying the existence of any records.
Who is a terrorist? The operative definition is that a terrorist is one "who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces;" therefore, a terrorist is someone the president has accused and then deemed in secret to be a terrorist without the need to present any evidence. The president and senior underlings are judge, jury and even executioner wrapped up in one.
When Barack Obama was a U.S. senator from Illinois, he denounced the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba with the charge that "a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence." Senator Obama even mocked the right-wing claim "that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury."
President Barack Obama has assumed the power to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen, a step-up in power that even the law-adverse George W. Bush did not venture to assume. Reuters has said that the decision to assassinate would be based on a "kill or capture list" drawn up by a "secretive panel of senior government officials." The Justice Department has responded to an ACLU request for information about the assassination program by neither confirming nor denying the existence of any records.
Who is a terrorist? The operative definition is that a terrorist is one "who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces;" therefore, a terrorist is someone the president has accused and then deemed in secret to be a terrorist without the need to present any evidence. The president and senior underlings are judge, jury and even executioner wrapped up in one.
When Barack Obama was a U.S. senator from Illinois, he denounced the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba with the charge that "a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence." Senator Obama even mocked the right-wing claim "that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury."
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Lock-'em-up Culture: Part II
The distinguishing characteristic of U.S. supermax prisons is an almost total lack of human contact, which is psychologically devastating for those confined in them. A reporter who visited a supermax prison in California, called the worst of the worst, reported that the impression that has stayed with him is the almost total lack of sound, with about the only sound he heard was clanging doors. A supermax built 100 feet below ground level means that the inmates will never see the sky nor experience any activity on the surface of the earth.
Solitary confinement is by no means confined to supermax prisons: Diane Dimond used one of her Saturday columns in the Albuquerque Journal to focus on what she called "a ground-breaking work" by journalist Susan Greene. In her book titled The Gray Box, Greene estimates that 80,000 Americans -- "many with no record of violence inside or outside prison -- are living in seclusion. They stay there for years, even decades." (15)
Dimond describes these prisoners as "walking in endless circles" in a space "as small as two queen-sized mattresses." There is virtually no contact with another human being and family members stop writing to those in long confinements. (16)
Diane Dimond says "America is supposed to be a compassionate country. This sounds like state-sponsored torture to me." It should be no great surprise that considering the inhumane way many of U.S. prisons are run, that the United States was found to be torturing detainees in the ill-defined Global War on Terror.
Many Americans would like to believe that racism has been eradicated from U.S. society. One area of U.S. life where racism is alive and well is in the criminal justice system. In a New Yorker article provocatively titled "The Caging of America," Adam Gopnick lays out the case about how black men are targeted for prison: 1) more than half of all black men without a high school diploma will go to prison at some point in their lives; 2) there are more black men in the grip of the criminal justice system -- in prison, on probation or on parole -- than were in slavery in 1850; 3) blacks are now incarcerated seven times as often as whites. (17)
The United States is also well out-of-step when it comes to punishing juveniles for serious crimes. A prime example of this unappealing exceptionalism of the United States is that it wasn't until 2005, in the case of Roper v. Simmons, that the U.S. became the last Western country to abolish the death penalty for juveniles. (18)
Texas and Michigan share a dubious distinction of leading the parade for harsh punishment for young wrongdoers. It has already been pointed out that Texas has 400 teenagers now serving life sentences. In Michigan, being tried as an adult for first degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Also in Michigan, as is true in many other states, prosecutors can try defendants older than 14, without a hearing, a statement of reasons, or an investigation of the adolescent's background. (19)
Juvenile courts have become increasingly punitive, and by the late 1990s, nearly half of convicted juveniles were behind bars, rather than in community-supervision or treatment programs, and a quarter of them were locked up because of misdemeanors or probation violations. (20)
Currently, there are some 25 hundred Americans inmates who were given life sentences for killing someone before their eighteenth birthday, with more than half of them committing their first crime. (21)
Katrina Miller, a corrections official turned academic researcher, is owed a debt of gratitude for discovering that a whopping 30 percent of inmates in Texas prisons meet the clinical threshold for "hard of hearing." (22)
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandated that any entity receiving federal money have an effective communications system for the deaf. (23) An illustration of how poorly implemented this law can be is the case of Texas prison inmate Felix Garcia. When Garcia was tried for murder -- it is likely he took the rap for an older family member -- he wasn't able to hear words at his trial, only noise. He gets no hearing assistance in prison. In theory, Garcia could file a civil rights lawsuit but the Clinton-era Prison Litigation Reform Act makes it extraordinarily difficult for individual prisoners to bring a federal case. (24)
The debtors' prison has been illegal in the United States since 1833. Nonetheless, more than a third of the states now allow borrowers to be jailed, even when debtors' prisons have been explicitly banned by state constitutions. The cost of jailing sometimes exceeds the debt owed.
Among the reforms proposed to make the U.S. criminal justice system more rational and fair is to try to reduce the prevalence of plea bargains and consequently increase the percentage of jury trials. By one estimate, more than 95 percent of felony convictions in metropolitan areas are the result of guilty pleas. (25) With the ability to threaten long sentences for sometimes minor crimes, prosecutors become something like extortion artists. (26)
One cannot talk intelligently about the tremendous increase in the U.S. prison population without bringing illegal drugs into the conversation, In 1980 there were 10,449 drug offenders behind bars and in 2003 that number had increased to 493,772. (27) The percentage of drug arrests targeting possession was 82.5 percent as of last report, and 17.5 percent targeted distribution. (28) The share of possession arrests was as follows: prescription drugs and inhalants - 19 percent; heroin/cocaine - 26 percent; meth and other synthetic drugs - 4 percent; and marijuana - 51 percent. (29)
A great deal of money could have been saved in court and imprisonment costs by adoption of the 1972 report recommendation of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, urging that possession of marijuana for personal use be decriminalized.
How does President Barack Obama fit into what has been written above? Given the immense cost of imprisoning much a large segment of the U.S.population; the level of dehumanizing practices in so many prisons, especially the supermaxes; and the racial component of our criminal justice apparatus, Obama could use and have used the presidential pulpit to call attention to the issue and maybe present some alternative solutions in the federal prison system. About the only mitigation of harsh punishment that Obama has been involved in was the reduction in the wide sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine -- still quite wide.
* Timothy Cole, convicted of a rape, to which another man confessed, died in prison before any action could be taken on the confession. As previously indicated, Texas has no formal procedure for dealing with a post-conviction confession by someone else.
Footnotes (continued)
(15) Diane Dimond, "Solitary Confinement a Stain on U. S. Prison Systems," The Albuquerque Journal, February 25, 2012.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Gopnick.
(18) Schwartzapbel.
(19) Rachel Aviv, "No Remorse," The New Yorker, January 2, 2012.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid.
(22) James Ridgeway, "The Silent Treatment," Mother Jones, March/April 2012.
(23) Ibid.
(24) Ibid.
(25) O'Donnell.
(26) Ibid.
(27) Kevin Drum, "The Patriot's Guide to Legalization," Mother Jones, July/August 2009.
(28) Ibid.
(29) Ibid.
Solitary confinement is by no means confined to supermax prisons: Diane Dimond used one of her Saturday columns in the Albuquerque Journal to focus on what she called "a ground-breaking work" by journalist Susan Greene. In her book titled The Gray Box, Greene estimates that 80,000 Americans -- "many with no record of violence inside or outside prison -- are living in seclusion. They stay there for years, even decades." (15)
Dimond describes these prisoners as "walking in endless circles" in a space "as small as two queen-sized mattresses." There is virtually no contact with another human being and family members stop writing to those in long confinements. (16)
Diane Dimond says "America is supposed to be a compassionate country. This sounds like state-sponsored torture to me." It should be no great surprise that considering the inhumane way many of U.S. prisons are run, that the United States was found to be torturing detainees in the ill-defined Global War on Terror.
Many Americans would like to believe that racism has been eradicated from U.S. society. One area of U.S. life where racism is alive and well is in the criminal justice system. In a New Yorker article provocatively titled "The Caging of America," Adam Gopnick lays out the case about how black men are targeted for prison: 1) more than half of all black men without a high school diploma will go to prison at some point in their lives; 2) there are more black men in the grip of the criminal justice system -- in prison, on probation or on parole -- than were in slavery in 1850; 3) blacks are now incarcerated seven times as often as whites. (17)
The United States is also well out-of-step when it comes to punishing juveniles for serious crimes. A prime example of this unappealing exceptionalism of the United States is that it wasn't until 2005, in the case of Roper v. Simmons, that the U.S. became the last Western country to abolish the death penalty for juveniles. (18)
Texas and Michigan share a dubious distinction of leading the parade for harsh punishment for young wrongdoers. It has already been pointed out that Texas has 400 teenagers now serving life sentences. In Michigan, being tried as an adult for first degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Also in Michigan, as is true in many other states, prosecutors can try defendants older than 14, without a hearing, a statement of reasons, or an investigation of the adolescent's background. (19)
Juvenile courts have become increasingly punitive, and by the late 1990s, nearly half of convicted juveniles were behind bars, rather than in community-supervision or treatment programs, and a quarter of them were locked up because of misdemeanors or probation violations. (20)
Currently, there are some 25 hundred Americans inmates who were given life sentences for killing someone before their eighteenth birthday, with more than half of them committing their first crime. (21)
Katrina Miller, a corrections official turned academic researcher, is owed a debt of gratitude for discovering that a whopping 30 percent of inmates in Texas prisons meet the clinical threshold for "hard of hearing." (22)
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandated that any entity receiving federal money have an effective communications system for the deaf. (23) An illustration of how poorly implemented this law can be is the case of Texas prison inmate Felix Garcia. When Garcia was tried for murder -- it is likely he took the rap for an older family member -- he wasn't able to hear words at his trial, only noise. He gets no hearing assistance in prison. In theory, Garcia could file a civil rights lawsuit but the Clinton-era Prison Litigation Reform Act makes it extraordinarily difficult for individual prisoners to bring a federal case. (24)
The debtors' prison has been illegal in the United States since 1833. Nonetheless, more than a third of the states now allow borrowers to be jailed, even when debtors' prisons have been explicitly banned by state constitutions. The cost of jailing sometimes exceeds the debt owed.
Among the reforms proposed to make the U.S. criminal justice system more rational and fair is to try to reduce the prevalence of plea bargains and consequently increase the percentage of jury trials. By one estimate, more than 95 percent of felony convictions in metropolitan areas are the result of guilty pleas. (25) With the ability to threaten long sentences for sometimes minor crimes, prosecutors become something like extortion artists. (26)
One cannot talk intelligently about the tremendous increase in the U.S. prison population without bringing illegal drugs into the conversation, In 1980 there were 10,449 drug offenders behind bars and in 2003 that number had increased to 493,772. (27) The percentage of drug arrests targeting possession was 82.5 percent as of last report, and 17.5 percent targeted distribution. (28) The share of possession arrests was as follows: prescription drugs and inhalants - 19 percent; heroin/cocaine - 26 percent; meth and other synthetic drugs - 4 percent; and marijuana - 51 percent. (29)
A great deal of money could have been saved in court and imprisonment costs by adoption of the 1972 report recommendation of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, urging that possession of marijuana for personal use be decriminalized.
How does President Barack Obama fit into what has been written above? Given the immense cost of imprisoning much a large segment of the U.S.population; the level of dehumanizing practices in so many prisons, especially the supermaxes; and the racial component of our criminal justice apparatus, Obama could use and have used the presidential pulpit to call attention to the issue and maybe present some alternative solutions in the federal prison system. About the only mitigation of harsh punishment that Obama has been involved in was the reduction in the wide sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine -- still quite wide.
* Timothy Cole, convicted of a rape, to which another man confessed, died in prison before any action could be taken on the confession. As previously indicated, Texas has no formal procedure for dealing with a post-conviction confession by someone else.
Footnotes (continued)
(15) Diane Dimond, "Solitary Confinement a Stain on U. S. Prison Systems," The Albuquerque Journal, February 25, 2012.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Gopnick.
(18) Schwartzapbel.
(19) Rachel Aviv, "No Remorse," The New Yorker, January 2, 2012.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid.
(22) James Ridgeway, "The Silent Treatment," Mother Jones, March/April 2012.
(23) Ibid.
(24) Ibid.
(25) O'Donnell.
(26) Ibid.
(27) Kevin Drum, "The Patriot's Guide to Legalization," Mother Jones, July/August 2009.
(28) Ibid.
(29) Ibid.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Lock-'em-up Culture: Part I
The United States has developed a lock-'em-up culture through which pervasive fear of crime has resulted in a massive prison complex, which is straining the budgets of many states. A few years ago it was announced that California, once the leader nationwide in public education, was spending more on prisons than it was on public schools. Texas was also engaged in a huge expansion of prisons. In the last two years, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. (1)
Overall, there are now more people under correctional supervision in America -- more than six million -- than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalinism at its height. (2) In 1980, there were about 220 people incarcerated for every 100,000 Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled to 731. (3) No other country, except Russia, even approaches the U.S. incarceration rate -- Germany's rate is 74 and France's, 72. (4)
David Fathi, a specialist on the U.S. prison system, had an article reproduced in the editorial pages of the February 20, 2010 Albuquerque Journal, which refers to a six-fold increase in the U.S. prison population in the 30 years ending in 2005.
David Fathi's article referred to above was not focused on the total number of people imprisoned, the focus was on the ten-fold growth in prisoners over the age of 65. Nationally, one in 11 prisoners is serving a life sentence and it is one in six prisoners in some states.
The title of Fathi's article, "U.S. Wasting Big Money on Nursing Houses With Razor Wire," is illustrated most concretely by his citation of a 2008 Pew Center on the State Report, which found that keeping someone over age 65 locked up costs about three times the $24,000 annual cost of the average prisoner.
Diane Dimond, who has a column in the Saturday Albuquerque Journal, writes that the Ohio prison system spends nearly $223 million a year on medical care for about 51,000 prisoners. About $28 million is spent on inmates' prescriptions. The California prison system identified 21 inmates whose annual health care bill is just over $2 million each. There are another 1,300 California inmates who annually require medical attention costing $100,000 or more apiece. (5)
In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners were entitled to the same medical and dental treatment as everyone else. (6)
For his book, Convicting the Innocent, University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett examined hundreds of DNA exonerations and found that in at least a third of the cases the eyewitness was shown a "stacked lineup," where the actual suspect was highlighted. (7) In the case of Timothy Cole,* convicted of rape in Texas, all but one of the photos were mug shots, with men looking away from the camera and holding their book-in cards. Nationwide, incorrect identification was a factor in the conviction of more than 75 percent of people eventually exonerated by DNA. (8) Cornell law professor Michael Dorf says that "Human beings are not very good at identifying people they only see for a relatively short period of time" and "studies reveal error rates of as high as 50 percent..." (9)
A number of reforms have been suggested to reduce the tragic occurrence of eyewitness false identifications: 1) implement the practice of "blind administration," whereby the officer conducting a lineup is not aware of who the suspect is (thus not revealing identity through gestures, vocal inflections and body language); 2) "non-suggestive" lineups made up of people who generally resemble a witness'es description, so that the suspect does not stand out; 3) allowing eyewitnesses to sign a statement indicating their level of confidence in their choice; and 4) presenting members of a lineup sequentially (to mitigate the pressure to choose someone when presented with a bunch of faces at once).
It isn't only faulty eyewitness testimony, of course, that results in the shameful number of convictions of innocent people in the United States. Law professor Brandon Garrett puts the number of DNA exonerations at 280 as of the writing of his book -- published in 2011. (10) However, given the extreme difficulty of freeing the falsely convicted and extrapolating from research on eyewitness identification and DNA exonerations, Garrett conservatively estimates that those wrongfully imprisoned in the U.S. ranges from a few thousand to 20,000. (11)
On a personal note, when I attended a conference on the wrongfully convicted in the mid-1990s, held at the Chicago branch of the Northwestern Law School, over a third of the 75 or so freed, nationwide, from Death Row or life sentences, were in attendance. Exonerations have been steadily climbing since that conference in Chicago.
If there is a Pecks bad boy of treatment of those indicted for serious crimes, it is the state of Texas. Not only does Texas lead the nation by a good margin in executions year-after-year, but it has sentenced more that 400 teenagers to life imprisonment as of the beginning of 2012. (12) Texas is also the place where sentences of over a thousand years are known to have occurred.
Most appeals in Texas wind up at the Court of Criminal Appeals, which consists primarily of former prosecutors elected to the bench. The court seldom reverses a case, even in the face of glaring errors or unfairness -- in one case it upheld the conviction of a man cleared by DNA evidence -- and its conduct has prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rebuke it several times. (13)
The Texas parole board rarely, if ever, meets face-to-face, as it conducts most of its business by phone calls, faxes, emails and regular mail. Parole in very violent crimes is very rarely granted and on aggravated assault cases, the parole board has approved parole in 0.1 percent of the cases. (14)
Texas also stands out by having no legal means for an actual perpetrator of a crime to confess to it when someone else has been convicted for that crime. See the asterisk at the end of Part II of this blog to learn how this omission affected Timothy Cole.
Part II of this blog will cover the topics of supermax prisons, solitary confinement, racism in the nation's courts and prisons, harsh treatment of juveniles, the plight of deaf prisoners, the rise of debtor imprisonment, the role of illegal drugs and what President Obama might do to highlight the criminal justice problems raised in this blog.
Footnotes
(1) Adam Gopnick, "The Caging of America," The New Yorker, January 30, 2012.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Michael O'Donnell, "Crime and Punishment," The Nation, January 30, 2012.
(5) Diane Dimond, "Need Health Care?" Try Going to Prison," The Albuquerque Journal, September 3, 2011.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Beth Schwartzapbel, :No Country for Innocent Men," Mother Jones, January/February 2012.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Gopnick.
(13) Schwartzapbel.
(14) Ibid.
Overall, there are now more people under correctional supervision in America -- more than six million -- than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalinism at its height. (2) In 1980, there were about 220 people incarcerated for every 100,000 Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled to 731. (3) No other country, except Russia, even approaches the U.S. incarceration rate -- Germany's rate is 74 and France's, 72. (4)
David Fathi, a specialist on the U.S. prison system, had an article reproduced in the editorial pages of the February 20, 2010 Albuquerque Journal, which refers to a six-fold increase in the U.S. prison population in the 30 years ending in 2005.
David Fathi's article referred to above was not focused on the total number of people imprisoned, the focus was on the ten-fold growth in prisoners over the age of 65. Nationally, one in 11 prisoners is serving a life sentence and it is one in six prisoners in some states.
The title of Fathi's article, "U.S. Wasting Big Money on Nursing Houses With Razor Wire," is illustrated most concretely by his citation of a 2008 Pew Center on the State Report, which found that keeping someone over age 65 locked up costs about three times the $24,000 annual cost of the average prisoner.
Diane Dimond, who has a column in the Saturday Albuquerque Journal, writes that the Ohio prison system spends nearly $223 million a year on medical care for about 51,000 prisoners. About $28 million is spent on inmates' prescriptions. The California prison system identified 21 inmates whose annual health care bill is just over $2 million each. There are another 1,300 California inmates who annually require medical attention costing $100,000 or more apiece. (5)
In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners were entitled to the same medical and dental treatment as everyone else. (6)
For his book, Convicting the Innocent, University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett examined hundreds of DNA exonerations and found that in at least a third of the cases the eyewitness was shown a "stacked lineup," where the actual suspect was highlighted. (7) In the case of Timothy Cole,* convicted of rape in Texas, all but one of the photos were mug shots, with men looking away from the camera and holding their book-in cards. Nationwide, incorrect identification was a factor in the conviction of more than 75 percent of people eventually exonerated by DNA. (8) Cornell law professor Michael Dorf says that "Human beings are not very good at identifying people they only see for a relatively short period of time" and "studies reveal error rates of as high as 50 percent..." (9)
A number of reforms have been suggested to reduce the tragic occurrence of eyewitness false identifications: 1) implement the practice of "blind administration," whereby the officer conducting a lineup is not aware of who the suspect is (thus not revealing identity through gestures, vocal inflections and body language); 2) "non-suggestive" lineups made up of people who generally resemble a witness'es description, so that the suspect does not stand out; 3) allowing eyewitnesses to sign a statement indicating their level of confidence in their choice; and 4) presenting members of a lineup sequentially (to mitigate the pressure to choose someone when presented with a bunch of faces at once).
It isn't only faulty eyewitness testimony, of course, that results in the shameful number of convictions of innocent people in the United States. Law professor Brandon Garrett puts the number of DNA exonerations at 280 as of the writing of his book -- published in 2011. (10) However, given the extreme difficulty of freeing the falsely convicted and extrapolating from research on eyewitness identification and DNA exonerations, Garrett conservatively estimates that those wrongfully imprisoned in the U.S. ranges from a few thousand to 20,000. (11)
On a personal note, when I attended a conference on the wrongfully convicted in the mid-1990s, held at the Chicago branch of the Northwestern Law School, over a third of the 75 or so freed, nationwide, from Death Row or life sentences, were in attendance. Exonerations have been steadily climbing since that conference in Chicago.
If there is a Pecks bad boy of treatment of those indicted for serious crimes, it is the state of Texas. Not only does Texas lead the nation by a good margin in executions year-after-year, but it has sentenced more that 400 teenagers to life imprisonment as of the beginning of 2012. (12) Texas is also the place where sentences of over a thousand years are known to have occurred.
Most appeals in Texas wind up at the Court of Criminal Appeals, which consists primarily of former prosecutors elected to the bench. The court seldom reverses a case, even in the face of glaring errors or unfairness -- in one case it upheld the conviction of a man cleared by DNA evidence -- and its conduct has prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rebuke it several times. (13)
The Texas parole board rarely, if ever, meets face-to-face, as it conducts most of its business by phone calls, faxes, emails and regular mail. Parole in very violent crimes is very rarely granted and on aggravated assault cases, the parole board has approved parole in 0.1 percent of the cases. (14)
Texas also stands out by having no legal means for an actual perpetrator of a crime to confess to it when someone else has been convicted for that crime. See the asterisk at the end of Part II of this blog to learn how this omission affected Timothy Cole.
Part II of this blog will cover the topics of supermax prisons, solitary confinement, racism in the nation's courts and prisons, harsh treatment of juveniles, the plight of deaf prisoners, the rise of debtor imprisonment, the role of illegal drugs and what President Obama might do to highlight the criminal justice problems raised in this blog.
Footnotes
(1) Adam Gopnick, "The Caging of America," The New Yorker, January 30, 2012.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Michael O'Donnell, "Crime and Punishment," The Nation, January 30, 2012.
(5) Diane Dimond, "Need Health Care?" Try Going to Prison," The Albuquerque Journal, September 3, 2011.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Beth Schwartzapbel, :No Country for Innocent Men," Mother Jones, January/February 2012.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Gopnick.
(13) Schwartzapbel.
(14) Ibid.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Bombing Iran Is the Worst Option of All
Journalist Dalia Dassa Kave has written a very perceptive article on the bad consequences that could result from bombing Iran. Although the article is directed mainly at Israel, it has relevance for the United States. I've strung together quotes to get the full impact of the message.
Advocacy of bombing Iran "rests on a faulty assumption that a post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, it may result in the worst of both worlds: a future nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to do so."
"The consensus among Western analysts is that a military attack against Iran would at best delay Iran's nuclear development, not stop it. Thus, what the region's future may hold is not an Iran that has or hasn't acquired nuclear weapons, but rather a nuclear-armed Iran that has or hasn't been attacked by Israel."
Therefore, "while a nuclear-armed Iran that hasn't been attacked is dangerous, one that has been attacked may be much more likely to brandish the capabilities to make sure it does not face an attack again."
"A unilateral attack by Israel would also diminish the determination of the international community to challenge Iranian transgressions of its Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty commitments, or to continue to support Israel."
"Regional reactions would also be negative, further inflaming anti-Israel sentiment in Arab nations."
"Israel has not faced a strategic situation in which it is isolated from Arabs and non-Arabs alike, while at the same time facing growing international isolation." *
There have been conflicting reports that Israel would give the United States no warning of a bombing attack on Iran and that it would give only 12 hours of advance warning, so that President Obama could not torpedo the attack. The other rationale advanced is that no warning by Israel would free the Obama White House from having to answer troubling questions about why it did not try to stop the attack.
The other persistent report of Israeli unhappiness with the U.S. is that Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu wants President Obama to precisely describe what he means by Iran crossing"red lines" and to do the same for all options being on the table. If Obama accedes to these demands, he will be further out on a breaking limb regarding the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran. Also, those who counsel giving sanctions time to work are on a perilous course of eventually needing to support bombing if it becomes clear that sanctions have failed.
Keeping in mind the kind of possible consequences warned of by the journalist Dalia Dassa Kave, the best policy would be one of "Relax." Let Iran go ahead and develop a nuclear bomb. Iran's leaders know that if they try to nuke any nuclear-armed nation, it will be the end of their nation. The United States lived a long time with a much greater threat of nuclear attack from the Soviet Union; also, dire warnings of an attack by a nuclear-armed and demonic North Korea have not come to pass.
A longer-term and more positive approach is to begin work on a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone. Achievement of this very difficult task could serve as a template for a similar arrangement in the Asian theater, where the Obama administration is beefing up a military presence. These actions can constitute steps toward a nuclear weapons-free world.
Ray McGovern, a former CIA officer, and Elizabeth Murray, a former intelligence officer, offer other options to help defuse Iran as an issue:
1) Order the negotiation of the kind of the bilateral "incidents-at-sea" agreement concluded with the Soviet Union in May 1972, to head off escalation when ships "go bump in the night;"
2) Issue a formal statement that the United States will not support an Israeli attack on Iran;
3) Have "military-to-military" dialogue with Israel; and
4) Make public a declassified version of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
Progressive talk show hosts who continue to support President Barack Obama are trying to distinguish his position on Iran from that of the Republican presidential contenders -- except for Ron Paul. Although I agree that the GOP contenders are using more provocative rhetoric about bombing Iran, Obama is also committed to bombing: he has said that all options, including the use of nuclear weapons, are on the table; he has said he is "not bluffing;" he has said he has Israel's back; and he and his defense secretary have said that bombing will commence if Iran crosses certain "red lines." Thus, if Obama wins a second term and U.S. intelligence concludes that Iran has developed a nuclear bomb(s), he must back up his words by bombing.
* Dalia Dassa Kave, "Attack on Iran May Be Worst Option," The Albuquerque Journal, February 25, 2012.
Advocacy of bombing Iran "rests on a faulty assumption that a post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, it may result in the worst of both worlds: a future nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to do so."
"The consensus among Western analysts is that a military attack against Iran would at best delay Iran's nuclear development, not stop it. Thus, what the region's future may hold is not an Iran that has or hasn't acquired nuclear weapons, but rather a nuclear-armed Iran that has or hasn't been attacked by Israel."
Therefore, "while a nuclear-armed Iran that hasn't been attacked is dangerous, one that has been attacked may be much more likely to brandish the capabilities to make sure it does not face an attack again."
"A unilateral attack by Israel would also diminish the determination of the international community to challenge Iranian transgressions of its Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty commitments, or to continue to support Israel."
"Regional reactions would also be negative, further inflaming anti-Israel sentiment in Arab nations."
"Israel has not faced a strategic situation in which it is isolated from Arabs and non-Arabs alike, while at the same time facing growing international isolation." *
There have been conflicting reports that Israel would give the United States no warning of a bombing attack on Iran and that it would give only 12 hours of advance warning, so that President Obama could not torpedo the attack. The other rationale advanced is that no warning by Israel would free the Obama White House from having to answer troubling questions about why it did not try to stop the attack.
The other persistent report of Israeli unhappiness with the U.S. is that Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu wants President Obama to precisely describe what he means by Iran crossing"red lines" and to do the same for all options being on the table. If Obama accedes to these demands, he will be further out on a breaking limb regarding the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran. Also, those who counsel giving sanctions time to work are on a perilous course of eventually needing to support bombing if it becomes clear that sanctions have failed.
Keeping in mind the kind of possible consequences warned of by the journalist Dalia Dassa Kave, the best policy would be one of "Relax." Let Iran go ahead and develop a nuclear bomb. Iran's leaders know that if they try to nuke any nuclear-armed nation, it will be the end of their nation. The United States lived a long time with a much greater threat of nuclear attack from the Soviet Union; also, dire warnings of an attack by a nuclear-armed and demonic North Korea have not come to pass.
A longer-term and more positive approach is to begin work on a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone. Achievement of this very difficult task could serve as a template for a similar arrangement in the Asian theater, where the Obama administration is beefing up a military presence. These actions can constitute steps toward a nuclear weapons-free world.
Ray McGovern, a former CIA officer, and Elizabeth Murray, a former intelligence officer, offer other options to help defuse Iran as an issue:
1) Order the negotiation of the kind of the bilateral "incidents-at-sea" agreement concluded with the Soviet Union in May 1972, to head off escalation when ships "go bump in the night;"
2) Issue a formal statement that the United States will not support an Israeli attack on Iran;
3) Have "military-to-military" dialogue with Israel; and
4) Make public a declassified version of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
Progressive talk show hosts who continue to support President Barack Obama are trying to distinguish his position on Iran from that of the Republican presidential contenders -- except for Ron Paul. Although I agree that the GOP contenders are using more provocative rhetoric about bombing Iran, Obama is also committed to bombing: he has said that all options, including the use of nuclear weapons, are on the table; he has said he is "not bluffing;" he has said he has Israel's back; and he and his defense secretary have said that bombing will commence if Iran crosses certain "red lines." Thus, if Obama wins a second term and U.S. intelligence concludes that Iran has developed a nuclear bomb(s), he must back up his words by bombing.
* Dalia Dassa Kave, "Attack on Iran May Be Worst Option," The Albuquerque Journal, February 25, 2012.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Diseased Mind of Rush Limbaugh
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is in trouble yet again for an ugly verbal assault on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student. Calling Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" was awful enough but he also said of Fluke that she insists on "being paid to have sex," and he said of her that she "was having so much sex" that she "could hardly walk to the hearing room" -- to testify at a congressional hearing.
Since Limbaugh had not yet plumbed the depths of his salacious being, he said that in return for paying for women's birth control he wanted videos made of the sex acts so those paying for the birth control -- including himself, of course -- could get a return on their money.
Rush Limbaugh was not just launching an attack on Sandra Fluke, who is well-informed on the birth control issue, he was attacking all women who use birth control at some time -- an estimated 99 percent of all women -- by creating the impression that all these women are getting contraceptive assistance for free. Women who have birth control in their health insurance policies pay for it in their premiums. Others pay for it directly through Planned Parenthood, drug stores and the like.
Limbaugh also distorted Sandra Fluke's testimony before a congressional committee by implying that she testified about her sexual experiences, whereas Fluke testified specifically about the birth control issue and recounted the experience of someone she knew who suffered severe medical complications for failing to use a contraceptive.
What passes as humor among the Limbaugh dittoheads is his promise to purchase enough aspirin to allow all the females at Georgetown University to hold the tablets between their knees. Limbaugh's pathetic attempt at
satire stems from Rick Santorum's chief financier saying that in the old days women practiced birth control by holding aspirin tablets between their knees.
As the storm of protest mounted against Limbaugh. Bay Buchanan appeared on national television to label Limbaugh "brilliant." Other die hard Limbaugh supporters used the classic defense whenever Limbaugh gets in trouble: they say he is "just an entertainer," and what he says should not be taken seriously; however, millions of dittoheads take him very seriously. It is not known if Miss and Mrs. Dittohead are cleaving quite as closely to his words now.
I had an experience regarding the dittohead mentality as a poll worker in a precinct located in a Republican enclave in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As word filtered down that Barack Obama was defeating John McCain, the GOP poll workers became noticeably glum and depressed. One obvious Limbaugh dittohead told a fellow dittohead standing near me: "We need to find out what Rush says."
Political conservatives have a standard reaction when they or someone sharing their ideology gets in trouble for something said. They desperately search to find a liberal or maybe a moderate Democrat who has said something somewhat similar. This is called equivalence, meaning that the two statements cancel one another out The major problem with this kind of weaseling out is that conservatives, especially of the hard-right variety, charge liberals with not taking personal responsibility for their actions. They, themselves, avoid personal responsibility like it is the plague.
Rush Limbaugh initially apologized on his web site but that apology was limited to "My choice of words was not the best." On March 5, he apologized on his radio show but that apology was limited to the use of the words "slut" and "prostitute." Limbaugh has devoted hours of radio time to the birth control issue, and if using nonfactual anti-women language were a criminal offense, a prosecutor would have a treasure trove of comments on which to draw.
As of today, by one count, a total of 35 advertisers have pulled or suspended their advertising. Besides a more fulsome, contrite apology from Rush Limbaugh, there should be an apology from the advertisers. If I were to write it, it would go something like this: "Ever since we began advertising on Mr. Limbaugh's radio show, our corporation has stood silently by when Mr. Limbaugh made nonfactual comments that were clearly anti-women and other comments that were racist in nature; also, he has routinely skewered his political opponents with language that has gone well beyond the bounds of reasoned discourse.
"We deeply apologize for our silence and our failure to take any action to induce Mr. Limbaugh to radically change his ways as a condition of the continuance of our advertising."
Besides a show of contrition from Limbaugh advertisers, this is a time for Republican leaders to issue a full-bore denunciation of Rush Limbaugh. In the past, whenever anything a Republican leader said was even mildly critical of Limbaugh, his counterattack was so fierce that the offending leader felt no choice but to meekly issue an apology. The Republican presidential contenders have become so tongue-tied in regard to Limbaugh's attack on birth control that words are unable to issue out of their mouths.
The person who has come shining bright out of the societal mess created by Rush Limbaugh is Sandra Fluke. Her words have been measured but forceful; she has displayed a very good grasp of the birth control issue; and she has refused to knuckle under to Limbaugh's media power by refusing to accept his non-apology apology.
An Afterword: Studies have shown that spacing of pregnancies is a critical factor in preserving women's health. Obstacles thrown up to the use of birth control are a detriment to women's health.
Since Limbaugh had not yet plumbed the depths of his salacious being, he said that in return for paying for women's birth control he wanted videos made of the sex acts so those paying for the birth control -- including himself, of course -- could get a return on their money.
Rush Limbaugh was not just launching an attack on Sandra Fluke, who is well-informed on the birth control issue, he was attacking all women who use birth control at some time -- an estimated 99 percent of all women -- by creating the impression that all these women are getting contraceptive assistance for free. Women who have birth control in their health insurance policies pay for it in their premiums. Others pay for it directly through Planned Parenthood, drug stores and the like.
Limbaugh also distorted Sandra Fluke's testimony before a congressional committee by implying that she testified about her sexual experiences, whereas Fluke testified specifically about the birth control issue and recounted the experience of someone she knew who suffered severe medical complications for failing to use a contraceptive.
What passes as humor among the Limbaugh dittoheads is his promise to purchase enough aspirin to allow all the females at Georgetown University to hold the tablets between their knees. Limbaugh's pathetic attempt at
satire stems from Rick Santorum's chief financier saying that in the old days women practiced birth control by holding aspirin tablets between their knees.
As the storm of protest mounted against Limbaugh. Bay Buchanan appeared on national television to label Limbaugh "brilliant." Other die hard Limbaugh supporters used the classic defense whenever Limbaugh gets in trouble: they say he is "just an entertainer," and what he says should not be taken seriously; however, millions of dittoheads take him very seriously. It is not known if Miss and Mrs. Dittohead are cleaving quite as closely to his words now.
I had an experience regarding the dittohead mentality as a poll worker in a precinct located in a Republican enclave in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As word filtered down that Barack Obama was defeating John McCain, the GOP poll workers became noticeably glum and depressed. One obvious Limbaugh dittohead told a fellow dittohead standing near me: "We need to find out what Rush says."
Political conservatives have a standard reaction when they or someone sharing their ideology gets in trouble for something said. They desperately search to find a liberal or maybe a moderate Democrat who has said something somewhat similar. This is called equivalence, meaning that the two statements cancel one another out The major problem with this kind of weaseling out is that conservatives, especially of the hard-right variety, charge liberals with not taking personal responsibility for their actions. They, themselves, avoid personal responsibility like it is the plague.
Rush Limbaugh initially apologized on his web site but that apology was limited to "My choice of words was not the best." On March 5, he apologized on his radio show but that apology was limited to the use of the words "slut" and "prostitute." Limbaugh has devoted hours of radio time to the birth control issue, and if using nonfactual anti-women language were a criminal offense, a prosecutor would have a treasure trove of comments on which to draw.
As of today, by one count, a total of 35 advertisers have pulled or suspended their advertising. Besides a more fulsome, contrite apology from Rush Limbaugh, there should be an apology from the advertisers. If I were to write it, it would go something like this: "Ever since we began advertising on Mr. Limbaugh's radio show, our corporation has stood silently by when Mr. Limbaugh made nonfactual comments that were clearly anti-women and other comments that were racist in nature; also, he has routinely skewered his political opponents with language that has gone well beyond the bounds of reasoned discourse.
"We deeply apologize for our silence and our failure to take any action to induce Mr. Limbaugh to radically change his ways as a condition of the continuance of our advertising."
Besides a show of contrition from Limbaugh advertisers, this is a time for Republican leaders to issue a full-bore denunciation of Rush Limbaugh. In the past, whenever anything a Republican leader said was even mildly critical of Limbaugh, his counterattack was so fierce that the offending leader felt no choice but to meekly issue an apology. The Republican presidential contenders have become so tongue-tied in regard to Limbaugh's attack on birth control that words are unable to issue out of their mouths.
The person who has come shining bright out of the societal mess created by Rush Limbaugh is Sandra Fluke. Her words have been measured but forceful; she has displayed a very good grasp of the birth control issue; and she has refused to knuckle under to Limbaugh's media power by refusing to accept his non-apology apology.
An Afterword: Studies have shown that spacing of pregnancies is a critical factor in preserving women's health. Obstacles thrown up to the use of birth control are a detriment to women's health.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Myths of Rich People and Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist by Marilynne Robinson
Myths of Rich People Creating ;Jobs
Myth 1 - Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy.
Bruce Bartlett, an economist in the Reagan administration, compared tax rates in various rich countries in 1979 to each country's growth rate since than and found virtually no correlation. Capital gains rates have bounced up and down from 40 percent to the current 15 percent, with no effect on business investment.
Myth 2 - Excessive regulation stifles business growth.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses reports that lack of sales/demand beats out everything else as a deterrent to business expansion. The claim is made that the Obama administration is killing growth by excessive regulation, but it has not been a whirlwind of regulatory activity.
Myth 3 - If you unshackle the rich, they'll rev up the economy.
After-tax corporate profits are currently at an all-time high and corporations are not expanding nor hiring much.
Zero-Sum Economy: "Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist" by Marilynne Robinson
"The ethos that will bear the best fruit is that we respect, educate, inform and trust one another."
"Austerity has been turned against institutions and customs that have been major engines of wealth creation."
"Market economics has shown itself ready to devour what we hold dear: culture, education, the environment and the sciences, as well as the peace and well-being of our fellow citizens."
"The wealth that was once frozen in appreciated value and thawed at the discretion of the owner, in homes notably, is increasingly liquid in the hands of international financial institutions."
"A zero-sum economy can improve wealth only by depressing costs -- wages, safety standards, taxes -- by moving wealth away from the general population."
"Something as valuable as education should not be commodified, parceled up and sold."
"But the new ideology seems to assume that the public as such cannot legitimacy own anything, or obligate the living to anything, for example, to providing the same access to education we have enjoyed."
Myth 1 - Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy.
Bruce Bartlett, an economist in the Reagan administration, compared tax rates in various rich countries in 1979 to each country's growth rate since than and found virtually no correlation. Capital gains rates have bounced up and down from 40 percent to the current 15 percent, with no effect on business investment.
Myth 2 - Excessive regulation stifles business growth.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses reports that lack of sales/demand beats out everything else as a deterrent to business expansion. The claim is made that the Obama administration is killing growth by excessive regulation, but it has not been a whirlwind of regulatory activity.
Myth 3 - If you unshackle the rich, they'll rev up the economy.
After-tax corporate profits are currently at an all-time high and corporations are not expanding nor hiring much.
Zero-Sum Economy: "Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist" by Marilynne Robinson
"The ethos that will bear the best fruit is that we respect, educate, inform and trust one another."
"Austerity has been turned against institutions and customs that have been major engines of wealth creation."
"Market economics has shown itself ready to devour what we hold dear: culture, education, the environment and the sciences, as well as the peace and well-being of our fellow citizens."
"The wealth that was once frozen in appreciated value and thawed at the discretion of the owner, in homes notably, is increasingly liquid in the hands of international financial institutions."
"A zero-sum economy can improve wealth only by depressing costs -- wages, safety standards, taxes -- by moving wealth away from the general population."
"Something as valuable as education should not be commodified, parceled up and sold."
"But the new ideology seems to assume that the public as such cannot legitimacy own anything, or obligate the living to anything, for example, to providing the same access to education we have enjoyed."
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Miscellaneous Policy Snapshots
In a prior blog on campaign finance reform, I made reference to an ad being run in New Mexico by the American Future Fund, contending that President Obama has appointed a listed 27 Wall Street movers and shakers to high-level government positions. I have deleted the reference because FactCheck.org of the Annenberg Public Policy Center has found that more than half of those cases are either flat wrong or greatly exaggerated. The "most laughable" examples are: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as having worked on Wall Street; two men appointed by former president Bush who left shortly after Obama took office; two men who never worked in the administration; and two men who worked on Wall Street only after leaving their administration job.
Pakistan
Dexter Filkins' article in the September 12, 2011 issue of The New Yorker, points up the challenge faced by the Obama administration in countering the influence of Pakistan's military and intelligence service (the I.S.I.). The Pakistani army is the world's eighth largest and takes up a quarter of the country's budget. Since the late 1970s, the military and the I.S.I. have trained and directed thousands of militants to fight in Indian Kashmir. I.S.I agent Fida Muhammad estimated that the I.S.I. evacuated as many as 1,500 militants from Tora Bora and other camps. Those evacuated included Arabs, Pakistanis, Uzbeks and Chechens.
Pakistan's military faces a major problem of Islamization.
In September 2011, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, directly accused the I.S.I. of being directly involved in the attack on the U.S.Embassy in Kabul.
Bush-Era Memo Details Arguments for Rendition Power
The March 13 memo by Jay S. Bybee, then assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's office of general counsel, said the president has an unfettered right to transfer prisoners captured in the Global War on Terror to governments around the world without regard for whether they would be tortured there.
The March memo went further. It said that prisoners held outside the United States were not protected by U.S. law nor against a separate international treaty banning torture. It also said that an 1998 law making it U.S. policy not to hand over prisoners to a country where they may be tortured was invalid because it unconstitutionally interferes with presidential powers.
The memo said: "To fully shield our personnel from criminal liability, it is important that the United States not enter into an agreement with a foreign country for the purpose of having the individual tortured. So long as the United States does not intend for a detainee to be tortured post-transfer, however, no criminal liability will attach to a transfer, even if the foreign country receiving the detainee does torture him."
Then CIA Director Leon Panetta, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said the United States would continue to engage in extraordinary rendition but would use it rarely and would be more selective about the countries to which prisoners would be sent.
Shortly after Barack Obama took the oath of office, the Washington Post reported that Obama had formally ended the Global War on Terror but he retained the right to use renditions; also, the detainees in Bagram air base in Afghanistan and the thousands being held in Iraq wouldn't get the case-by-case review accorded to counterparts being held in Cuba. Non-military agencies, such as the CIA, were told that after a six-month review they might get "additional or different guidance on interrogations."
An article titled "GWOT's End?" in the January 27, 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs in Focus, expressed skepticism about an end to the Global War on Terrorism: "But so far the new president still treats terrorism as a war to be won rather than an endemic problem to be dealt with, patiently and largely by law enforcement agencies. We're still at war in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and for the time being, in Iraq. We're still selling arms to Indonesia, Israel and Colombia as part of an overall counterterrorism approach. The Pentagon's new Africa Command (AFRICOM) still looks at counterterorism through a military lens."
Pakistan
Dexter Filkins' article in the September 12, 2011 issue of The New Yorker, points up the challenge faced by the Obama administration in countering the influence of Pakistan's military and intelligence service (the I.S.I.). The Pakistani army is the world's eighth largest and takes up a quarter of the country's budget. Since the late 1970s, the military and the I.S.I. have trained and directed thousands of militants to fight in Indian Kashmir. I.S.I agent Fida Muhammad estimated that the I.S.I. evacuated as many as 1,500 militants from Tora Bora and other camps. Those evacuated included Arabs, Pakistanis, Uzbeks and Chechens.
Pakistan's military faces a major problem of Islamization.
In September 2011, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, directly accused the I.S.I. of being directly involved in the attack on the U.S.Embassy in Kabul.
Bush-Era Memo Details Arguments for Rendition Power
The March 13 memo by Jay S. Bybee, then assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's office of general counsel, said the president has an unfettered right to transfer prisoners captured in the Global War on Terror to governments around the world without regard for whether they would be tortured there.
The March memo went further. It said that prisoners held outside the United States were not protected by U.S. law nor against a separate international treaty banning torture. It also said that an 1998 law making it U.S. policy not to hand over prisoners to a country where they may be tortured was invalid because it unconstitutionally interferes with presidential powers.
The memo said: "To fully shield our personnel from criminal liability, it is important that the United States not enter into an agreement with a foreign country for the purpose of having the individual tortured. So long as the United States does not intend for a detainee to be tortured post-transfer, however, no criminal liability will attach to a transfer, even if the foreign country receiving the detainee does torture him."
Then CIA Director Leon Panetta, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said the United States would continue to engage in extraordinary rendition but would use it rarely and would be more selective about the countries to which prisoners would be sent.
Shortly after Barack Obama took the oath of office, the Washington Post reported that Obama had formally ended the Global War on Terror but he retained the right to use renditions; also, the detainees in Bagram air base in Afghanistan and the thousands being held in Iraq wouldn't get the case-by-case review accorded to counterparts being held in Cuba. Non-military agencies, such as the CIA, were told that after a six-month review they might get "additional or different guidance on interrogations."
An article titled "GWOT's End?" in the January 27, 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs in Focus, expressed skepticism about an end to the Global War on Terrorism: "But so far the new president still treats terrorism as a war to be won rather than an endemic problem to be dealt with, patiently and largely by law enforcement agencies. We're still at war in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and for the time being, in Iraq. We're still selling arms to Indonesia, Israel and Colombia as part of an overall counterterrorism approach. The Pentagon's new Africa Command (AFRICOM) still looks at counterterorism through a military lens."
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Obama on Campaign Finance Reform and Gun Control
Barack Obama opted out of government financing in his first presidential campaign and is rejecting it in his campaign for a second term -- setting a fundraising goal of $1 billion. He initially rejected involvement with a superpac but has changed his mind, arguing that he can't afford to disarm himself against his political opponents. His surrogates will be allowed to meet with super-funders but cannot solicit money.
The Sunlight Foundation has calculated that President Barack Obama has received more campaign funding from Wall Street than any other prior president. To this point, Obama has received $42 million from Wall Street movers and shakers, according to the Sunlight Foundation..
About six months into Obama's current term in office, a group of Foreign Service officers did a fairly unusual thing: they sent a letter to President Obama raising a concern about him breaking an unwritten rule that no more than 30 percent of ambassadorial appointments should go to major fundraisers or those closely politically connected to the president. Obama then reportedly dialed down such appointments. Yet, plum appointments to Japan, the United Kingdom and France went to major donors.
Way back in November 2009, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that 24 of Obama's high-profile nominees were "bundlers" for him. Bundlers gather together campaign contributions from a number of major donors. Coming up to more recent times, in October 28, 2011, the New York Times' Eric Lichtblau reported that the Obama campaign was working with 15 bundlers who were linked to the lobbying industry. Collectively they had raised more than $5 million. Technically, they were not lobbyists because they were not registered as federal lobbyists with the U.S. Senate. Two of the people, at least, were lobbyists for major corporations: Sally Susuran with Pfiger and David L. Cohen with Comcast.
Given President Obama's track record, those to whom campaign finance reform is a major issue should not expect any action until at least 2017 if Obama wins a second term.
Gun Control
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's chief policy adviser reported that they're still waiting for President Obama to carry out his promise to Rep. Giffords (D-AZ) to do something on gun control. This promise, made shortly after Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head, is extremely unlikely to be fulfilled before November 2012, because Obama doesn't want to incur the wrath of the National Rifle Association.
The other major firearms issue President Obama has faced is the very embarrassing program labeled "Fast and Furious," whereby guns were allowed to be purchased near the Mexican border, with the goal of tracking them to drug cartels. At least three White House officials knew about the operation but a senior official said there was nothing to prove that the White House knew of the "investigative" aspects.
There have been two happenings in the past year that illustrate how intense the desire is to get more guns into the hands of U.S. citizens. The GOP-controlled U.S. House passed a bill requiring states that issue permits allowing residents to carry concealed weapons to recognize the permits issued by every state. Thus, states with stringent training and age requirements would need to recognize permits issued by states with very lax requirements.
The second, more recent happening, was the action of the Virginia legislature in repealing the law limiting gun purchases to one a month. It is hard to imagine why people need an unlimited number of guns in their possession and why there there is no concern about community safety with so many guns around.
There is a fascinating counterpoint in tales of the Wild West, centering on gunfights, as opposed to the open availability of firearms today, even the right to carry concealed firearms. Adam Winklere, in this book, Gun Fight, noted that state and local governments routinely banned concealed weapons in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Even Dodge City and Tombstone required "new arrivals" to turn their guns over to authorities while in town.
Media and general public discussion focuses on a ban on assault rifles and denial of access to guns by unstable or mentally ill individuals. Such a limited perspective on gun control is a misnomer, as the handgun is the major instrument of crimes causing death and serious injury. Gun, or firearms control should be focused on a ban on the manufacture or importation of handguns and handgun parts.
Unless I become too lazy, I will do a major piece on firearms control in the future.
The Sunlight Foundation has calculated that President Barack Obama has received more campaign funding from Wall Street than any other prior president. To this point, Obama has received $42 million from Wall Street movers and shakers, according to the Sunlight Foundation..
About six months into Obama's current term in office, a group of Foreign Service officers did a fairly unusual thing: they sent a letter to President Obama raising a concern about him breaking an unwritten rule that no more than 30 percent of ambassadorial appointments should go to major fundraisers or those closely politically connected to the president. Obama then reportedly dialed down such appointments. Yet, plum appointments to Japan, the United Kingdom and France went to major donors.
Way back in November 2009, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that 24 of Obama's high-profile nominees were "bundlers" for him. Bundlers gather together campaign contributions from a number of major donors. Coming up to more recent times, in October 28, 2011, the New York Times' Eric Lichtblau reported that the Obama campaign was working with 15 bundlers who were linked to the lobbying industry. Collectively they had raised more than $5 million. Technically, they were not lobbyists because they were not registered as federal lobbyists with the U.S. Senate. Two of the people, at least, were lobbyists for major corporations: Sally Susuran with Pfiger and David L. Cohen with Comcast.
Given President Obama's track record, those to whom campaign finance reform is a major issue should not expect any action until at least 2017 if Obama wins a second term.
Gun Control
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's chief policy adviser reported that they're still waiting for President Obama to carry out his promise to Rep. Giffords (D-AZ) to do something on gun control. This promise, made shortly after Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head, is extremely unlikely to be fulfilled before November 2012, because Obama doesn't want to incur the wrath of the National Rifle Association.
The other major firearms issue President Obama has faced is the very embarrassing program labeled "Fast and Furious," whereby guns were allowed to be purchased near the Mexican border, with the goal of tracking them to drug cartels. At least three White House officials knew about the operation but a senior official said there was nothing to prove that the White House knew of the "investigative" aspects.
There have been two happenings in the past year that illustrate how intense the desire is to get more guns into the hands of U.S. citizens. The GOP-controlled U.S. House passed a bill requiring states that issue permits allowing residents to carry concealed weapons to recognize the permits issued by every state. Thus, states with stringent training and age requirements would need to recognize permits issued by states with very lax requirements.
The second, more recent happening, was the action of the Virginia legislature in repealing the law limiting gun purchases to one a month. It is hard to imagine why people need an unlimited number of guns in their possession and why there there is no concern about community safety with so many guns around.
There is a fascinating counterpoint in tales of the Wild West, centering on gunfights, as opposed to the open availability of firearms today, even the right to carry concealed firearms. Adam Winklere, in this book, Gun Fight, noted that state and local governments routinely banned concealed weapons in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Even Dodge City and Tombstone required "new arrivals" to turn their guns over to authorities while in town.
Media and general public discussion focuses on a ban on assault rifles and denial of access to guns by unstable or mentally ill individuals. Such a limited perspective on gun control is a misnomer, as the handgun is the major instrument of crimes causing death and serious injury. Gun, or firearms control should be focused on a ban on the manufacture or importation of handguns and handgun parts.
Unless I become too lazy, I will do a major piece on firearms control in the future.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Some Education-Related Policy Snippets
Information and Proposed Changes in the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAP)
The ASVAP has been a powerful recruiting tool for the Pentagon, with hundreds of thousands of student scores routinely being sent to the military each year, typically leading to follow-up calls from recruiters. About 621,000 students took the ASVAP test in 2006-07, yielding 23,000 military recruits, or 9.3 percent of total enlistments, according to the Department of Defense (DoD). Of the 11,900 schools nationwide that gave the test, 92 percent allowed military recruiters to receive test results and personal contact information.
Civilian Defense Department employees seeking to market the ASVAP attend educator conferences, give talks in schools and can spend up to $1,000 for events where they make presentations, or give training to school employees.
The 693,600-student Los Angeles Unified School District mandated in the 2011-12 school year that no ASVAP information go to recruiters. About 2,700 students still took the test.
Among the changes that critics -- chiefly Safe Passage USA -- propose are:
- equal access for organizations providing alternatives to military careers;
- reporting of policy violations to school boards; and
- possible banning of recruiting organizations after two violations of policy.
Charter School Fraud
Between 2005 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Education opened 53 investigations of charter school fraud, resulting in 21 indictments and 17 convictions. Nineteen of Philadelphia's 84 charter schools were under investigation by state and/or local authorities.
Influences on Student Performance
A study titled "Withering Opportunity" reported that the family is by far the most important influence on student performance, topping both school and community. It is the latest in a series of studies showing that it is difficult to overcome a bad family situation in educating a child.
In 2010, the results of international testing comparing students in 34 developed countries showed a stunning decline in U.S. test scores.
The two findings above have a relationship to President Barack Obama's policy preferences, as he believes in tying teacher evaluations to student performance on high stakes testing. Teachers working in poverty-stricken areas have an additional hurdle to overcome in raising their students' test scores. Secondly, the decline in the test scores of U.S students in 2010 testing shows that years of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may not have had a beneficial effect. Although Obama proposes to remove the NCLB emphasis on failing students and schools, he still does not want to kill NCLB.
On-Line Education
When President Obama held a well-publicized meeting with former Florida governor Jeb Bush, the GOP's "go-to guy" on educational issues, he gave prominence to the GOP's ultimate goal of breaking teachers' unions through use of vouchers, increasing the number of mostly non-union charter schools and promoting on-line education. Jeb Bush has possible conflict of interest problems, because a brother sells products tailored for on-line education. Jeb, himself, travels the country extolling the virtues of for-profit on-line education.
On-line education has a number of drawbacks: it siphons money from public institutions into for-profit companies; it undercuts public employees and their unions; it is beset with allegations of fraud; on-line schools rank among the most troubled of schools; and the digital learning products tend to be of low-quality.
There tends to be little teacher involvement in on-line education and parents do much of the teaching. Class sizes tend to be large, as illustrated by more than 100 students in some Wisconsin on-line classes. Also, teachers' salaries comprise just 17 percent of the budget for the on-line company, ECOT; in contrast, in Ohio's public schools, teachers may comprise 75 percent of the education budget.
Spending priorities can be very skewed at on-line education companies: Q Academy Wisconsin spent $424,700 on ads.
Finally, a CREDO research study shows learning gains for on-line students are significantly worse than in traditional public schools.
The ASVAP has been a powerful recruiting tool for the Pentagon, with hundreds of thousands of student scores routinely being sent to the military each year, typically leading to follow-up calls from recruiters. About 621,000 students took the ASVAP test in 2006-07, yielding 23,000 military recruits, or 9.3 percent of total enlistments, according to the Department of Defense (DoD). Of the 11,900 schools nationwide that gave the test, 92 percent allowed military recruiters to receive test results and personal contact information.
Civilian Defense Department employees seeking to market the ASVAP attend educator conferences, give talks in schools and can spend up to $1,000 for events where they make presentations, or give training to school employees.
The 693,600-student Los Angeles Unified School District mandated in the 2011-12 school year that no ASVAP information go to recruiters. About 2,700 students still took the test.
Among the changes that critics -- chiefly Safe Passage USA -- propose are:
- equal access for organizations providing alternatives to military careers;
- reporting of policy violations to school boards; and
- possible banning of recruiting organizations after two violations of policy.
Charter School Fraud
Between 2005 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Education opened 53 investigations of charter school fraud, resulting in 21 indictments and 17 convictions. Nineteen of Philadelphia's 84 charter schools were under investigation by state and/or local authorities.
Influences on Student Performance
A study titled "Withering Opportunity" reported that the family is by far the most important influence on student performance, topping both school and community. It is the latest in a series of studies showing that it is difficult to overcome a bad family situation in educating a child.
In 2010, the results of international testing comparing students in 34 developed countries showed a stunning decline in U.S. test scores.
The two findings above have a relationship to President Barack Obama's policy preferences, as he believes in tying teacher evaluations to student performance on high stakes testing. Teachers working in poverty-stricken areas have an additional hurdle to overcome in raising their students' test scores. Secondly, the decline in the test scores of U.S students in 2010 testing shows that years of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may not have had a beneficial effect. Although Obama proposes to remove the NCLB emphasis on failing students and schools, he still does not want to kill NCLB.
On-Line Education
When President Obama held a well-publicized meeting with former Florida governor Jeb Bush, the GOP's "go-to guy" on educational issues, he gave prominence to the GOP's ultimate goal of breaking teachers' unions through use of vouchers, increasing the number of mostly non-union charter schools and promoting on-line education. Jeb Bush has possible conflict of interest problems, because a brother sells products tailored for on-line education. Jeb, himself, travels the country extolling the virtues of for-profit on-line education.
On-line education has a number of drawbacks: it siphons money from public institutions into for-profit companies; it undercuts public employees and their unions; it is beset with allegations of fraud; on-line schools rank among the most troubled of schools; and the digital learning products tend to be of low-quality.
There tends to be little teacher involvement in on-line education and parents do much of the teaching. Class sizes tend to be large, as illustrated by more than 100 students in some Wisconsin on-line classes. Also, teachers' salaries comprise just 17 percent of the budget for the on-line company, ECOT; in contrast, in Ohio's public schools, teachers may comprise 75 percent of the education budget.
Spending priorities can be very skewed at on-line education companies: Q Academy Wisconsin spent $424,700 on ads.
Finally, a CREDO research study shows learning gains for on-line students are significantly worse than in traditional public schools.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)