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."
Saturday, April 28, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)