The writer is James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton
University. This article appeared in the Washington Post.
By Uwe E. Reinhardt
President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course.
Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit
no sacrifice of any sort -- neither blood nor angst nor taxes -- on well over 95
percent of the American people?
At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war
theaters at some time. Assume that for each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars.
The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars -- to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad.
The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice
for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called "moral hazard"
in the context of health insurance, a field in which I've done a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to the cost they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated
against the emotional -- and financial -- cost of war, is it not natural to
suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well?
A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to proclaim our support for the troops. But at the same time, we allow families of reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs -- in a nation with a $13 trillion economy!
Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected $12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food pantries for American military families? The state of Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than $400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee. With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent per capita. Is this what we mean by "supporting our troops"?
When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: "Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.
Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Condoms Lose Ground in HIV Prevention
By William Fisher
Central America and Uganda this week became the latest targets for right-wing leaders to blast HIV/AIDS prevention efforts that stray from the George W. Bush administration's "abstinence-only" ideology.
One of the country's most influential faith-based organisations, Focus on the Family (FOF), charged that a U.S. not-for-profit group, Advocates for Youth, "is asking its members and supporters to contact key Ugandan health and government officials and urge them to more fully embrace condoms and other forms of birth control".
FOF quoted the Advocates for Youth website, which says, "There is no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programmes work," adding that support must be given to "science-based HIV prevention strategies" rather than "ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programmes."
Peter Brandt, FOF's senior director of government and public policy, said the group is flatly misstating reality in order to promote its condoms-first agenda.
"What the studies bear out is that abstinence works every time in preventing the spread of HIV and all other sexually transmitted diseases," he said. "Condoms aren't a solution to the problem of young people dying; they're a politically correct cause for those on the political left."
Focus on the Family, led by televangelist Rev. James Dobson, claimed that Uganda "once had the highest HIV-infection rates in the world -- 30 percent in some regions. But through the government's strong abstinence policy, rates have plummeted -- from 21.2 percent among pregnant women in 1991 to 6.1 percent in 2001."
It said the general population has also seen a decline to around seven percent. "And that number figures to drop further, since studies show a third of Ugandan college students are keeping their abstinence pledges."
However, many groups say Uganda is now in the midst of a "condom crisis" that is endangering the country's previously successful prevention efforts.
According to the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), condoms have become difficult to find in cities, even for a high price, and are unavailable in many rural areas.
Reports indicate that in some areas, including those with large numbers of internally displaced persons, people desperate to prevent HIV infection have begun using garbage bags as condom substitutes.
Similar trends are underway in a number of other countries, including Zambia, where reduced supplies of condoms and shifts in funding of prevention programmes are leaving millions at risk, and Kenya, Namibia, and Tanzania, where U.S. funding is indirectly supporting the resurgence of fundamentalist religious movements and undermining effective HIV prevention, CHANGE says.
In a related development, right-wing Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, demanded that the United States stop financing a Central American HIV-AIDS prevention programme, run by Population Services International (PSI), a nonprofit group.
In a letter to Pres. Bush, Coburn -- a medical doctor -- complained about PSI's "Noches Vives" and other programmes. Noches means nights; Vives is a brand of condoms.
Because most prostitutes in poor countries don't show up at local clinics to ask for condoms, PSI sponsors Noches Vives, sending aid workers to bars, brothels and other places where prostitutes congregate. They go from table to table, handing out condoms, sometimes using bananas as props, showing people how to use them.
Coburn wrote that PSI's funding is up for renewal, and PSI has applied for tens of millions more to continue the project, adding, "There is something seriously askew at USAID when the agency's response to a dehumanising and abusive practice that exploits women and young girls is parties and games."
"It's a simple activity for largely illiterate people," said Michael Holscher, regional executive director for PSI. "We can't just stand up in a bar and say, 'AIDS will kill you.' With an interactive activity, we can hold their attention, sometimes for as long as an hour."
Shortly after Coburn's letter, USAID cut off money for the programme.
Rev. Tim Simpson of the newly-formed Christian Alliance, told IPS, "This is an absolutely tragic situation that is being compounded by the extremist ethics of Christian fundamentalists, who place sexual purity ahead of saving lives."
"The scourge of HIV/AIDS ought not be the occasion for trotting out the right wing's failed attempts at abstinence education," he said. "They don't seem to be nearly as concerned about Africans dying as they are about keeping Africans from having sex outside of marriage."
"But one infected prostitute can destroy the lives of hundreds of people in a very short period of time, so there is no question that the need is acute. It is time that the U.S. government stops listening to groups like Focus on the Family and instead starts focusing on reality," Simpson added.
The Coburn action came on the heels of a lawsuit challenging the government's "anti-prostitution" policy, charging that it is an "unconstitutional infringement of speech" that is undermining international efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The NGO, DKT International, filed the suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against USAID and its administrator, challenging the requirement that U.S. and foreign NGOs receiving USAID funding from adopt a policy "explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking".
USAID adopted the rule requirement in June, as one of a number of policies advocated by the "pro-life" religious right. Other Bush administration initiatives include endorsement of the so-called Mexico Protocol, which forbids abortion counseling in family planning programmes overseas.
U.S. observance of the protocol -- termed "the global gag rule" by family planning professionals -- was rescinded during the Bill Clinton administration (1992-2000) but reauthorised under Bush on his first day in office in January 2001.
Under the rule, foreign family planning agencies may not receive U.S. funds if, with their own funds, they counsel on or refer for abortion, advocate for more lenient abortion laws in their own country, or provide abortion services.
DKT's president, Philip D. Harvey, said the anti-prostitution and sex trafficking policy "does a grave disservice to international AIDS-prevention programmes and to those who carry them out. The policy does no good, and is clearly doing considerable harm."
DKT International is a non-profit organisation based in Washington. It manages contraceptive social marketing programmes for family planning and AIDS prevention in 11 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. DKT's programmes currently serve just under 10 million couples, with an operating budget of 50 million dollars.
As a result of refusing to adopt (and certify) USAID's policy on prostitution, DKT lost USAID support for its AIDS-prevention work in Vietnam. Its lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to permit it to resume this work.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the anti-abortion Population Research Institute (PRI) is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Kabul "to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of U.N. agencies and anti-child NGOs".
PRI said, "The recent legalisation of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst…Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Although, according to reports, three doctors must certify that the abortion is a medical necessity, such regulations have quickly degenerated in other countries to abortion on demand."
Central America and Uganda this week became the latest targets for right-wing leaders to blast HIV/AIDS prevention efforts that stray from the George W. Bush administration's "abstinence-only" ideology.
One of the country's most influential faith-based organisations, Focus on the Family (FOF), charged that a U.S. not-for-profit group, Advocates for Youth, "is asking its members and supporters to contact key Ugandan health and government officials and urge them to more fully embrace condoms and other forms of birth control".
FOF quoted the Advocates for Youth website, which says, "There is no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programmes work," adding that support must be given to "science-based HIV prevention strategies" rather than "ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programmes."
Peter Brandt, FOF's senior director of government and public policy, said the group is flatly misstating reality in order to promote its condoms-first agenda.
"What the studies bear out is that abstinence works every time in preventing the spread of HIV and all other sexually transmitted diseases," he said. "Condoms aren't a solution to the problem of young people dying; they're a politically correct cause for those on the political left."
Focus on the Family, led by televangelist Rev. James Dobson, claimed that Uganda "once had the highest HIV-infection rates in the world -- 30 percent in some regions. But through the government's strong abstinence policy, rates have plummeted -- from 21.2 percent among pregnant women in 1991 to 6.1 percent in 2001."
It said the general population has also seen a decline to around seven percent. "And that number figures to drop further, since studies show a third of Ugandan college students are keeping their abstinence pledges."
However, many groups say Uganda is now in the midst of a "condom crisis" that is endangering the country's previously successful prevention efforts.
According to the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), condoms have become difficult to find in cities, even for a high price, and are unavailable in many rural areas.
Reports indicate that in some areas, including those with large numbers of internally displaced persons, people desperate to prevent HIV infection have begun using garbage bags as condom substitutes.
Similar trends are underway in a number of other countries, including Zambia, where reduced supplies of condoms and shifts in funding of prevention programmes are leaving millions at risk, and Kenya, Namibia, and Tanzania, where U.S. funding is indirectly supporting the resurgence of fundamentalist religious movements and undermining effective HIV prevention, CHANGE says.
In a related development, right-wing Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, demanded that the United States stop financing a Central American HIV-AIDS prevention programme, run by Population Services International (PSI), a nonprofit group.
In a letter to Pres. Bush, Coburn -- a medical doctor -- complained about PSI's "Noches Vives" and other programmes. Noches means nights; Vives is a brand of condoms.
Because most prostitutes in poor countries don't show up at local clinics to ask for condoms, PSI sponsors Noches Vives, sending aid workers to bars, brothels and other places where prostitutes congregate. They go from table to table, handing out condoms, sometimes using bananas as props, showing people how to use them.
Coburn wrote that PSI's funding is up for renewal, and PSI has applied for tens of millions more to continue the project, adding, "There is something seriously askew at USAID when the agency's response to a dehumanising and abusive practice that exploits women and young girls is parties and games."
"It's a simple activity for largely illiterate people," said Michael Holscher, regional executive director for PSI. "We can't just stand up in a bar and say, 'AIDS will kill you.' With an interactive activity, we can hold their attention, sometimes for as long as an hour."
Shortly after Coburn's letter, USAID cut off money for the programme.
Rev. Tim Simpson of the newly-formed Christian Alliance, told IPS, "This is an absolutely tragic situation that is being compounded by the extremist ethics of Christian fundamentalists, who place sexual purity ahead of saving lives."
"The scourge of HIV/AIDS ought not be the occasion for trotting out the right wing's failed attempts at abstinence education," he said. "They don't seem to be nearly as concerned about Africans dying as they are about keeping Africans from having sex outside of marriage."
"But one infected prostitute can destroy the lives of hundreds of people in a very short period of time, so there is no question that the need is acute. It is time that the U.S. government stops listening to groups like Focus on the Family and instead starts focusing on reality," Simpson added.
The Coburn action came on the heels of a lawsuit challenging the government's "anti-prostitution" policy, charging that it is an "unconstitutional infringement of speech" that is undermining international efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The NGO, DKT International, filed the suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against USAID and its administrator, challenging the requirement that U.S. and foreign NGOs receiving USAID funding from adopt a policy "explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking".
USAID adopted the rule requirement in June, as one of a number of policies advocated by the "pro-life" religious right. Other Bush administration initiatives include endorsement of the so-called Mexico Protocol, which forbids abortion counseling in family planning programmes overseas.
U.S. observance of the protocol -- termed "the global gag rule" by family planning professionals -- was rescinded during the Bill Clinton administration (1992-2000) but reauthorised under Bush on his first day in office in January 2001.
Under the rule, foreign family planning agencies may not receive U.S. funds if, with their own funds, they counsel on or refer for abortion, advocate for more lenient abortion laws in their own country, or provide abortion services.
DKT's president, Philip D. Harvey, said the anti-prostitution and sex trafficking policy "does a grave disservice to international AIDS-prevention programmes and to those who carry them out. The policy does no good, and is clearly doing considerable harm."
DKT International is a non-profit organisation based in Washington. It manages contraceptive social marketing programmes for family planning and AIDS prevention in 11 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. DKT's programmes currently serve just under 10 million couples, with an operating budget of 50 million dollars.
As a result of refusing to adopt (and certify) USAID's policy on prostitution, DKT lost USAID support for its AIDS-prevention work in Vietnam. Its lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to permit it to resume this work.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the anti-abortion Population Research Institute (PRI) is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Kabul "to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of U.N. agencies and anti-child NGOs".
PRI said, "The recent legalisation of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst…Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Although, according to reports, three doctors must certify that the abortion is a medical necessity, such regulations have quickly degenerated in other countries to abortion on demand."
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
MORE WHISTLEBLOWER WOES
By William Fisher
Whistleblowers – those who go public with allegations of waste, fraud and abuse – continue to have a tough time, despite a law protecting them, and repeated assurances from the White House, many government agencies and congress that they maintain a policy of zero tolerance for retaliation.
The latest victim of apparent retaliation is Bunnatine H. “Bunny” Greenhouse,
the senior contracting officer for the Army Corps of Engineers, who objected – first, internally, then publicly – to a multi-billion dollar, no-bid contract with the Halliburton Company for work in Iraq.
Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, commander of the Army Corps, told Greenhouse she was being removed from the senior executive service, the top rank of civilian government employees, because of poor performance reviews.
But Greenhouse's attorney, Michael D. Kohn, has appealed the decision in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, saying the performance review cited by Strock to justify his action "was conducted by the very subjects" of Greenhouse's allegations, including the general.”
Greenhouse went public with her concerns over the volume of Iraq-related work given to Halliburton by the Corps without competition. Previously, her complaints within the agency having been ignored, she started giving interviews to national publications, and testified before a Democrat-sponsored Capitol Hill event on contracting in Iraq.
"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to (Halliburton subsidiary) KBR represents the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed" in 20 years working on government contracts, Greenhouse said at the Democratic forum.
Greenhouse, the Army Corps' top procurement official since 1997, has developed a reputation among those in both government and industry as being a stickler for the rules.
That has led her critics to characterize her as a rule-bound bureaucrat. But those who support her see her as a defender of the public trust.
In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, KBR had been hired to design a program to extinguish the oil fires the Pentagon believed retreating Iraqi troops would set when the invasion took place.
The government’s request for proposals to implement the KBR plan stipulated
that contractors had to have knowledge of KBR's plan. Consequently, KBR was the only bidder deemed eligible. The company was then hired to implement the program in a five-year, no-bid contract. Government contacting rules generally forbid contractors hired to prepare plans and budget estimates from bidding for the work that grows out of these plans.
Government contractors who spoke with IPS on condition of anonymity said “contracts officers who insist on dotting every ‘i’ and crossing every ‘t’ can drive you crazy and delay your start-date”. But all agreed that contracting regulations “are there for a purpose – to protect the taxpayers’ money – and. In the end, you just accept delays as a cost of doing business.”
Greenhouse is only the latest in a lengthening string of whistleblowers whose cases have been rejected by the government.
Most prominent is Sibel Edmonds, who is waiting for the Supreme Court to review her charges that the behavior of some of her fellow employees at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) compromised national security. Lower courts turned down her case when the FBI claimed the ‘state secrets’ privilege, contending that disclosure of Edmonds’ evidence would reveal classified information.
Edmonds, a contract linguist for the bureau, was the subject of an investigation by the Department of Justice inspector general, who found that her charges were the major reason for her dismissal.
She organized and now leads the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), which includes more than 50 former employees of national security agencies. The group has called on congress to permit whistleblowers to sue government retaliators in their personal and official capacities and to bring suit against agencies for failure to rectify misdeeds by employees or provide sufficient safeguards against whistleblower retaliation.
The government is increasingly using the ‘state secrets’ privilege to block whistleblowers’ suits. The State Secrets Privilege gives the federal government the ability to dismiss legal cases it claims would threaten foreign policy, military intelligence or national security.
It was used in 2002 in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese American computer scientist charged with stealing nuclear secrets for China from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
President George W. Bush said national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee. In a plea bargain with Lee -- who had been imprisoned for 278 days in solitary confinement -- Lee pled guilty to improper handling of classified data and was cleared of all charges relating to espionage.
The government again invoked the privilege when Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, sought to sue then Attorney General John Ashcroft for his role in taking Arar from New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport to Syria against his will. He says he was first held incommunicado by U.S. immigration authorities, and eventually “rendered” to Syria, where he was imprisoned for close to a year and claims he was tortured. He was released without charges.
Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey said in legal papers filed at the time that “Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified information." The Arar case is currently being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Barbara Olshansky, the assistant legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing Arar, told IPS, that government lawyers “think they can do anything they want in the name of the global war on terrorism.”
Again, in August 2005, a Federal Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) based on the state secrets privilege.
Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA Operations Officer, claimed he was told he was “too big and black” to receive certain CIA assignments, and that CIA management placed expectations on him “far above those required of non-African-American Operations Officers.” He also contended he was retaliated against for using the CIA’s internal equal employment opportunity process.
The court ruled that Sterling cold not prove employment discrimination without exposing classified details of his covert employment.
Jeff Ruch, executive director of the civil service support group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told IPS, “The stark absence of whistleblower rights in security, intelligence and military agencies is a growing vacuum that requires dedicated efforts to address."
Whistleblowers – those who go public with allegations of waste, fraud and abuse – continue to have a tough time, despite a law protecting them, and repeated assurances from the White House, many government agencies and congress that they maintain a policy of zero tolerance for retaliation.
The latest victim of apparent retaliation is Bunnatine H. “Bunny” Greenhouse,
the senior contracting officer for the Army Corps of Engineers, who objected – first, internally, then publicly – to a multi-billion dollar, no-bid contract with the Halliburton Company for work in Iraq.
Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, commander of the Army Corps, told Greenhouse she was being removed from the senior executive service, the top rank of civilian government employees, because of poor performance reviews.
But Greenhouse's attorney, Michael D. Kohn, has appealed the decision in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, saying the performance review cited by Strock to justify his action "was conducted by the very subjects" of Greenhouse's allegations, including the general.”
Greenhouse went public with her concerns over the volume of Iraq-related work given to Halliburton by the Corps without competition. Previously, her complaints within the agency having been ignored, she started giving interviews to national publications, and testified before a Democrat-sponsored Capitol Hill event on contracting in Iraq.
"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to (Halliburton subsidiary) KBR represents the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed" in 20 years working on government contracts, Greenhouse said at the Democratic forum.
Greenhouse, the Army Corps' top procurement official since 1997, has developed a reputation among those in both government and industry as being a stickler for the rules.
That has led her critics to characterize her as a rule-bound bureaucrat. But those who support her see her as a defender of the public trust.
In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, KBR had been hired to design a program to extinguish the oil fires the Pentagon believed retreating Iraqi troops would set when the invasion took place.
The government’s request for proposals to implement the KBR plan stipulated
that contractors had to have knowledge of KBR's plan. Consequently, KBR was the only bidder deemed eligible. The company was then hired to implement the program in a five-year, no-bid contract. Government contacting rules generally forbid contractors hired to prepare plans and budget estimates from bidding for the work that grows out of these plans.
Government contractors who spoke with IPS on condition of anonymity said “contracts officers who insist on dotting every ‘i’ and crossing every ‘t’ can drive you crazy and delay your start-date”. But all agreed that contracting regulations “are there for a purpose – to protect the taxpayers’ money – and. In the end, you just accept delays as a cost of doing business.”
Greenhouse is only the latest in a lengthening string of whistleblowers whose cases have been rejected by the government.
Most prominent is Sibel Edmonds, who is waiting for the Supreme Court to review her charges that the behavior of some of her fellow employees at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) compromised national security. Lower courts turned down her case when the FBI claimed the ‘state secrets’ privilege, contending that disclosure of Edmonds’ evidence would reveal classified information.
Edmonds, a contract linguist for the bureau, was the subject of an investigation by the Department of Justice inspector general, who found that her charges were the major reason for her dismissal.
She organized and now leads the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), which includes more than 50 former employees of national security agencies. The group has called on congress to permit whistleblowers to sue government retaliators in their personal and official capacities and to bring suit against agencies for failure to rectify misdeeds by employees or provide sufficient safeguards against whistleblower retaliation.
The government is increasingly using the ‘state secrets’ privilege to block whistleblowers’ suits. The State Secrets Privilege gives the federal government the ability to dismiss legal cases it claims would threaten foreign policy, military intelligence or national security.
It was used in 2002 in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese American computer scientist charged with stealing nuclear secrets for China from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
President George W. Bush said national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee. In a plea bargain with Lee -- who had been imprisoned for 278 days in solitary confinement -- Lee pled guilty to improper handling of classified data and was cleared of all charges relating to espionage.
The government again invoked the privilege when Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, sought to sue then Attorney General John Ashcroft for his role in taking Arar from New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport to Syria against his will. He says he was first held incommunicado by U.S. immigration authorities, and eventually “rendered” to Syria, where he was imprisoned for close to a year and claims he was tortured. He was released without charges.
Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey said in legal papers filed at the time that “Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified information." The Arar case is currently being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Barbara Olshansky, the assistant legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing Arar, told IPS, that government lawyers “think they can do anything they want in the name of the global war on terrorism.”
Again, in August 2005, a Federal Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) based on the state secrets privilege.
Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA Operations Officer, claimed he was told he was “too big and black” to receive certain CIA assignments, and that CIA management placed expectations on him “far above those required of non-African-American Operations Officers.” He also contended he was retaliated against for using the CIA’s internal equal employment opportunity process.
The court ruled that Sterling cold not prove employment discrimination without exposing classified details of his covert employment.
Jeff Ruch, executive director of the civil service support group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told IPS, “The stark absence of whistleblower rights in security, intelligence and military agencies is a growing vacuum that requires dedicated efforts to address."
AND ON AND ON AND ON
By William Fisher
Central America and Uganda this week became the latest targets for right-wing leaders to blast HIV-AIDS prevention efforts that stray from the Bush Administration’s “abstinence-only” ideology.
One of the country’s most influential faith-based organizations, Focus on the Family (FOF), charged that a U.S. not-for-profit group, Advocates for Youth, “is asking its members and supporters to contact key Ugandan health and government officials and urge them to more fully embrace condoms and other forms of birth control.”
FOF quoted the Advocates for Youth website, which says, "There is no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs work," the states, adding that support must be given to "science-based HIV prevention strategies" rather than "ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs."
Peter Brandt, FOF’s senior director of government and public policy, said the group is flatly misstating reality in order to promote its condoms-first agenda.
"What the studies bear out is that abstinence works every time in preventing the spread of HIV and all other sexually transmitted diseases," he said. "Condoms aren't a solution to the problem of young people dying; they're a politically correct cause for those on the political left."
Focus on the Family, led by televangelist Rev. James Dobson, claimed that Uganda “once had the highest HIV-infection rates in the world -- 30 percent in some regions. But through the government's strong abstinence policy, rates have plummeted—from 21.2 percent among pregnant women in 1991 to 6.1 percent in 2001.”
It said the general population has also seen a decline to around 7 percent. “And that number figures to drop further, since studies show a third of Ugandan college students are keeping their abstinence pledges.”
In a related development, right-wing Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, demanded that the United States stop financing a Central American HIV-AIDS prevention program, run by Population Services International (PSI), a nonprofit group.
In a letter to President George W. Bush, Coburn -- a medical doctor -- complained about PSI’s “Noches Vives” and other programs. Noches means nights; Vives is a brand of condoms. Because most prostitutes in poor countries don't show up at local clinics to ask for condoms, PSI sponsors Noches Vives, sending aid workers to bars, brothels and other places where prostitutes congregate. They go from table to table, handing out condoms, sometimes using bananas as props, show people how to use them.
Coburn wrote that PSI’s funding is up for renewal, and PSI has applied for tens of millions more to continue the project," adding, “There is something seriously askew at USAID when the agency's response to a dehumanizing and abusive practice that exploits women and young girls is parties and games."
"It's a simple activity for largely illiterate people," said Michael Holscher, regional executive director for P.S.I. "We can't just stand up in a bar and say, 'AIDS will kill you.' With an interactive activity, we can hold their attentions, sometimes for as long as an hour."
Shortly after Mr. Coburn's letter, USAID cut off money for the program.
Rev. Tim Simpson of the newly-formed Christian Alliance, told IPS, "This is an absolutely tragic situation that is being compounded by the extremist ethics of Christian fundamentalists, who place sexual purity ahead of saving lives. The scourge of HIV/AIDS ought not be the occasion for trotting out the right wing's failed attempts at abstinence education. They don't seem to be nearly as concerned about Africans dying as they are about keeping Africans from having sex outside of marriage. But one infected prostitute can destroy the lives of hundreds of people in a very short period of time, so there is no question that the need is acute. It is time that the US government stops listening to groups like Focus on the Family and instead starts focusing on reality."
The Coburn action came on the heels of a lawsuit challenging the
government’s “anti-prostitution” policy, charging that it is an ”unconstitutional infringement of speech” that is undermining international efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The NGO, DKT International, filed the suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against USAID and its administrator, challenging the requirement that U.S. and foreign NGOs receiving USAID funding from adopt a policy “explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”
USAID adopted the rule requirement in June, as one of a number of policies advocated by the ‘pro-life’ religious right. Other Bush Administration initiatives include endorsement of the so-called Mexico Protocol, which forbids abortion counseling in family planning programs overseas.
U.S. observance of the protocol -- termed “the global gag rule” by family planning professionals -- was rescinded during the Clinton Administration but
re-authorized under President George W. Bush on his first day in office in January 2001.
Under the rule, foreign family planning agencies may not receive U.S. funds if, with their own funds, they counsel on or refer for abortion, advocate for more lenient abortion laws in their own country, or provide abortion services.
DKT’s president, Philip D. Harvey, said the anti-prostitution and sex trafficking policy “does a grave disservice to international AIDs-prevention programs and to those who carry them out. The policy does no good, and is clearly doing considerable harm.”
He told IPS,” I have found that non-governmental organizations around the world really despise this anti-prostitution pledge. In addition to making their work harder, it undermines their integrity, insults them really.”
DKT International is a non-profit organization based in Washington DC. It manages contraceptive social marketing programs for family planning and AIDS prevention in eleven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. DKT’s programs currently serve just under 10 million couples, with an operating budget of $50 million.
“By coercing the speech of private parties”, he added, “The policy violates the First Amendment rights -- and the integrity -- of the organizations that are forced into compliance.”
As a result of refusing to adopt (and certify) USAID’s policy on prostitution, DKT lost USAID support for its AIDS-prevention work in Vietnam. Its lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to permit it to resume this work.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the anti-abortion Population Research Institute (PRI) is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Kabul “to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of UN agencies and anti-child NGOs.”
PRI said, “The recent legalization of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst…Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Although, according to reports, three doctors must certify that the abortion is a medical necessity, such regulations have quickly degenerated in other countries to abortion on demand.”
Central America and Uganda this week became the latest targets for right-wing leaders to blast HIV-AIDS prevention efforts that stray from the Bush Administration’s “abstinence-only” ideology.
One of the country’s most influential faith-based organizations, Focus on the Family (FOF), charged that a U.S. not-for-profit group, Advocates for Youth, “is asking its members and supporters to contact key Ugandan health and government officials and urge them to more fully embrace condoms and other forms of birth control.”
FOF quoted the Advocates for Youth website, which says, "There is no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs work," the states, adding that support must be given to "science-based HIV prevention strategies" rather than "ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs."
Peter Brandt, FOF’s senior director of government and public policy, said the group is flatly misstating reality in order to promote its condoms-first agenda.
"What the studies bear out is that abstinence works every time in preventing the spread of HIV and all other sexually transmitted diseases," he said. "Condoms aren't a solution to the problem of young people dying; they're a politically correct cause for those on the political left."
Focus on the Family, led by televangelist Rev. James Dobson, claimed that Uganda “once had the highest HIV-infection rates in the world -- 30 percent in some regions. But through the government's strong abstinence policy, rates have plummeted—from 21.2 percent among pregnant women in 1991 to 6.1 percent in 2001.”
It said the general population has also seen a decline to around 7 percent. “And that number figures to drop further, since studies show a third of Ugandan college students are keeping their abstinence pledges.”
In a related development, right-wing Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, demanded that the United States stop financing a Central American HIV-AIDS prevention program, run by Population Services International (PSI), a nonprofit group.
In a letter to President George W. Bush, Coburn -- a medical doctor -- complained about PSI’s “Noches Vives” and other programs. Noches means nights; Vives is a brand of condoms. Because most prostitutes in poor countries don't show up at local clinics to ask for condoms, PSI sponsors Noches Vives, sending aid workers to bars, brothels and other places where prostitutes congregate. They go from table to table, handing out condoms, sometimes using bananas as props, show people how to use them.
Coburn wrote that PSI’s funding is up for renewal, and PSI has applied for tens of millions more to continue the project," adding, “There is something seriously askew at USAID when the agency's response to a dehumanizing and abusive practice that exploits women and young girls is parties and games."
"It's a simple activity for largely illiterate people," said Michael Holscher, regional executive director for P.S.I. "We can't just stand up in a bar and say, 'AIDS will kill you.' With an interactive activity, we can hold their attentions, sometimes for as long as an hour."
Shortly after Mr. Coburn's letter, USAID cut off money for the program.
Rev. Tim Simpson of the newly-formed Christian Alliance, told IPS, "This is an absolutely tragic situation that is being compounded by the extremist ethics of Christian fundamentalists, who place sexual purity ahead of saving lives. The scourge of HIV/AIDS ought not be the occasion for trotting out the right wing's failed attempts at abstinence education. They don't seem to be nearly as concerned about Africans dying as they are about keeping Africans from having sex outside of marriage. But one infected prostitute can destroy the lives of hundreds of people in a very short period of time, so there is no question that the need is acute. It is time that the US government stops listening to groups like Focus on the Family and instead starts focusing on reality."
The Coburn action came on the heels of a lawsuit challenging the
government’s “anti-prostitution” policy, charging that it is an ”unconstitutional infringement of speech” that is undermining international efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The NGO, DKT International, filed the suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against USAID and its administrator, challenging the requirement that U.S. and foreign NGOs receiving USAID funding from adopt a policy “explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”
USAID adopted the rule requirement in June, as one of a number of policies advocated by the ‘pro-life’ religious right. Other Bush Administration initiatives include endorsement of the so-called Mexico Protocol, which forbids abortion counseling in family planning programs overseas.
U.S. observance of the protocol -- termed “the global gag rule” by family planning professionals -- was rescinded during the Clinton Administration but
re-authorized under President George W. Bush on his first day in office in January 2001.
Under the rule, foreign family planning agencies may not receive U.S. funds if, with their own funds, they counsel on or refer for abortion, advocate for more lenient abortion laws in their own country, or provide abortion services.
DKT’s president, Philip D. Harvey, said the anti-prostitution and sex trafficking policy “does a grave disservice to international AIDs-prevention programs and to those who carry them out. The policy does no good, and is clearly doing considerable harm.”
He told IPS,” I have found that non-governmental organizations around the world really despise this anti-prostitution pledge. In addition to making their work harder, it undermines their integrity, insults them really.”
DKT International is a non-profit organization based in Washington DC. It manages contraceptive social marketing programs for family planning and AIDS prevention in eleven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. DKT’s programs currently serve just under 10 million couples, with an operating budget of $50 million.
“By coercing the speech of private parties”, he added, “The policy violates the First Amendment rights -- and the integrity -- of the organizations that are forced into compliance.”
As a result of refusing to adopt (and certify) USAID’s policy on prostitution, DKT lost USAID support for its AIDS-prevention work in Vietnam. Its lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to permit it to resume this work.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the anti-abortion Population Research Institute (PRI) is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Kabul “to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of UN agencies and anti-child NGOs.”
PRI said, “The recent legalization of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst…Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Although, according to reports, three doctors must certify that the abortion is a medical necessity, such regulations have quickly degenerated in other countries to abortion on demand.”
Sunday, August 28, 2005
ANYONE LISTENING?
By William Fisher
On September 11, 2001, a New York City police helicopter hovered above the World Trade Center.
Two minutes earlier, the first of the twin towers had collapsed. It would be twenty-one minutes before the second tower was to collapse.
“About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it’s glowing red,” the pilot of one helicopter radioed. “It’s inevitable.”
Seconds later a second pilot radioed, “I don’t think (the second tower) has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building.”
New York City police received the call to evacuate the buildings. Fire and
rescue personnel did not because they operated on a different radio system. As a result, dozens of police officers and several hundred fire and rescue personnel perished in the collapse.
At the Pentagon, where emergency personnel from 50 different public safety agencies in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia responded, no communication was possible between fire companies of different jurisdictions, or to the Arlington County, Virginia, fire chief who had overall command at the scene.
These failures bubbled back into people’s consciousness again four years after that fateful day with the release of thousands of pages of oral histories recorded by survivors and victims. The gut-wrenching tapes were obtained from the New York City Fire Department after The New York Times sued the city under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), passed over forty years ago to give citizens greater access to government documents.
Why did communications systems fail so totally in a country renowned for its technological prowess?
Public safety agencies including first responders, such as firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services, are heavily dependent on wireless radios.
Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity, known as spectrum, in order to function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work within specified frequency ranges. On 9/11 there was no spectrum allocated to public safety – and there still isn’t.
Different operations, different applications, different rules and standards, and
different radio frequencies are among the problems first responders faced in trying to communicate with each other. Interoperability, also referred to as compatibility or connectivity, refers to the capability for these different systems to readily contact each other.
As a result, there was little communication between New York City Police Department and fire department commands even though an Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had been set up after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. The OEM's command center was located on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center, a building near the twin towers.
When police officials concluded the twin towers were in danger of collapsing and ordered police to leave the complex, fire officials were not notified.
Four years on, families of victims, policy makers, and ordinary citizens are asking: ”Could it happen again”?
And, according to virtually every expert, the answer is ‘yes’.
Though literally scores of legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress, funding for the first steps in design of a robust architecture for emergency communications and allocation of essential radio spectrum was not signed into law until 2003. And neither job is completed as yet.
In fiscal 2006, the DHS plans to spend $1.7 billion on state and local preparedness, but only $20 million for radio interoperability funding for police, fire and medical first responders.
DHS claims it is making progress in achieving interoperability of emergency systems nationwide but acknowledges it is dealing with a long-term problem.
But, in a new report, “America’s First Responders and the Federal Budget: A Study of Rhetoric Versus Reality,” the First Response Coalition (FRC),says “first responders will be underfunded by $100.2 billion by 2008”. FRC is an advocacy group of 40,000 police, fire fighters, emergency workers and private citizens.
Todd Main, director of FRC, says, “The overall lack of resources is creating new hardships for police, fire, and EMS departments. We need to make sure that the promised money is available at that basic communication needs get squared away immediately. It is simply wrong for policymakers to promise needed funds to first responders and then fail to deliver.”
The magnitude of the task facing the DHS was underlined by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In a 2004 survey of 192 cities, it found that 60% of respondents indicated that city public safety departments did not have interoperability with the state emergency operations center and 88% did not have interoperability with the DHS.
There are over 2.5 million first responders in the United States, comprising 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies, 26,000 fire departments, and more than 6,000 rescue departments.
Availability of radio spectrum remains among outstanding problems. The designated channels are currently held by TV broadcasters and are to be cleared as part of the move from analog to digital television (DTV). But this probably will not happen until 2009.
Making matters worse are a slew of human factors. Experts identify as most serious the turf wars relating to control issues that are ongoing between first responders in the same cities – in New York City, police and firefighters are still bickering over who’s in charge of what – not to mention the turfing at the state-federal level and among federal agencies.
“The key problem here is, and continues to be, the inability of people to put aside egos and address this on a regional basis, not on a stovepipe basis,” said William Jenkins, Director of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the congressional watchdog agency that has done a number of studies of the 9/11 communications breakdown.
Experts cite reluctance by local governments and states to have Washington “mandate” a solution from the top, especially one that would require more local spending for updated equipment. Unfortunately, neighboring communities often started out with requirements for systems with vastly different capabilities with interoperability being low on the list.
“We don't have another 20 years,” says Congressman Bart Stupak,
co-chairman of the House of Representatives Law Enforcement Caucus and a 12-year police veteran from Michigan.
“There has been a serious lack of commitment from this administration and from Congress,” he says.
The 9-11 Commission Report said there is "strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, state and federal levels remains an important problem...Federal funding of such (interagency communication) units should be given high priority..."
That some progress is now being made, albeit at a pace many consider glacial, may provide little comfort to 9/11 families.
On September 11, 2001, a New York City police helicopter hovered above the World Trade Center.
Two minutes earlier, the first of the twin towers had collapsed. It would be twenty-one minutes before the second tower was to collapse.
“About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it’s glowing red,” the pilot of one helicopter radioed. “It’s inevitable.”
Seconds later a second pilot radioed, “I don’t think (the second tower) has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building.”
New York City police received the call to evacuate the buildings. Fire and
rescue personnel did not because they operated on a different radio system. As a result, dozens of police officers and several hundred fire and rescue personnel perished in the collapse.
At the Pentagon, where emergency personnel from 50 different public safety agencies in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia responded, no communication was possible between fire companies of different jurisdictions, or to the Arlington County, Virginia, fire chief who had overall command at the scene.
These failures bubbled back into people’s consciousness again four years after that fateful day with the release of thousands of pages of oral histories recorded by survivors and victims. The gut-wrenching tapes were obtained from the New York City Fire Department after The New York Times sued the city under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), passed over forty years ago to give citizens greater access to government documents.
Why did communications systems fail so totally in a country renowned for its technological prowess?
Public safety agencies including first responders, such as firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services, are heavily dependent on wireless radios.
Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity, known as spectrum, in order to function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work within specified frequency ranges. On 9/11 there was no spectrum allocated to public safety – and there still isn’t.
Different operations, different applications, different rules and standards, and
different radio frequencies are among the problems first responders faced in trying to communicate with each other. Interoperability, also referred to as compatibility or connectivity, refers to the capability for these different systems to readily contact each other.
As a result, there was little communication between New York City Police Department and fire department commands even though an Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had been set up after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. The OEM's command center was located on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center, a building near the twin towers.
When police officials concluded the twin towers were in danger of collapsing and ordered police to leave the complex, fire officials were not notified.
Four years on, families of victims, policy makers, and ordinary citizens are asking: ”Could it happen again”?
And, according to virtually every expert, the answer is ‘yes’.
Though literally scores of legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress, funding for the first steps in design of a robust architecture for emergency communications and allocation of essential radio spectrum was not signed into law until 2003. And neither job is completed as yet.
In fiscal 2006, the DHS plans to spend $1.7 billion on state and local preparedness, but only $20 million for radio interoperability funding for police, fire and medical first responders.
DHS claims it is making progress in achieving interoperability of emergency systems nationwide but acknowledges it is dealing with a long-term problem.
But, in a new report, “America’s First Responders and the Federal Budget: A Study of Rhetoric Versus Reality,” the First Response Coalition (FRC),says “first responders will be underfunded by $100.2 billion by 2008”. FRC is an advocacy group of 40,000 police, fire fighters, emergency workers and private citizens.
Todd Main, director of FRC, says, “The overall lack of resources is creating new hardships for police, fire, and EMS departments. We need to make sure that the promised money is available at that basic communication needs get squared away immediately. It is simply wrong for policymakers to promise needed funds to first responders and then fail to deliver.”
The magnitude of the task facing the DHS was underlined by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In a 2004 survey of 192 cities, it found that 60% of respondents indicated that city public safety departments did not have interoperability with the state emergency operations center and 88% did not have interoperability with the DHS.
There are over 2.5 million first responders in the United States, comprising 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies, 26,000 fire departments, and more than 6,000 rescue departments.
Availability of radio spectrum remains among outstanding problems. The designated channels are currently held by TV broadcasters and are to be cleared as part of the move from analog to digital television (DTV). But this probably will not happen until 2009.
Making matters worse are a slew of human factors. Experts identify as most serious the turf wars relating to control issues that are ongoing between first responders in the same cities – in New York City, police and firefighters are still bickering over who’s in charge of what – not to mention the turfing at the state-federal level and among federal agencies.
“The key problem here is, and continues to be, the inability of people to put aside egos and address this on a regional basis, not on a stovepipe basis,” said William Jenkins, Director of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the congressional watchdog agency that has done a number of studies of the 9/11 communications breakdown.
Experts cite reluctance by local governments and states to have Washington “mandate” a solution from the top, especially one that would require more local spending for updated equipment. Unfortunately, neighboring communities often started out with requirements for systems with vastly different capabilities with interoperability being low on the list.
“We don't have another 20 years,” says Congressman Bart Stupak,
co-chairman of the House of Representatives Law Enforcement Caucus and a 12-year police veteran from Michigan.
“There has been a serious lack of commitment from this administration and from Congress,” he says.
The 9-11 Commission Report said there is "strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, state and federal levels remains an important problem...Federal funding of such (interagency communication) units should be given high priority..."
That some progress is now being made, albeit at a pace many consider glacial, may provide little comfort to 9/11 families.
Friday, August 26, 2005
A Sensible Path to Arab Modernity
By Rami G. Khouri
The writer is Editor-at-Large for The Daily Star, Beirut.
What's wrong with the Arabs? Why do so many Islamic societies spawn terrorists? Why are our societies so violent and unstable? What is needed to transform the societies of the Middle East, North Africa and west-central Asia into stable, prosperous countries?
These are the sorts of sweeping, big sticker questions that many people within the Middle East ask every day, looking simultaneously at internal factors as well as external causes of our many excesses. It was heartening and instructive for me earlier this week to have the privilege of sharing in a panel discussion with two of the clearest thinking, most articulate analysts in the Arab world — George Corm and Clovis Maksoud, both Lebanese — as we discussed the impact of the last three Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The issues they raised and the analytical suggestions they made deserve a wider hearing than the students and staff participating in a summer course on conflict-resolution organised in Lebanon by UNDP and Lebanese American University. I suspect their way of thinking correctly identifies the key challenges facing the Arab world, reflects the views of the vast majority of Arabs, and offers a practical, realistic route out of the Arab world's current dilemma of stagnation, frustration and confrontation.
Corm, a professor of economics at St Joseph University in Beirut and a former Lebanese Cabinet minister, makes the point that the Arab region undoubtedly needs real reform, but there is no consensus on the reasons for this. Is current and historical foreign interference the main problem, he asks? Domestic power distortions? Patriarchal social culture? Polarised societies fragmenting into smaller and smaller units based on ethnicity, religion and ideology? Hostility among Arab states and leaderships?
A combination of these and other reasons explains the burdensome, humiliating fact that the Arab region is the only part of the world where foreign armies today still regularly invade, occupy, and try to remake societies. More troubling is his observation that Arabs today face virtually the same challenge that confronted our societies around 150 years ago, in the late Ottoman period: Why are Arab societies underdeveloped, and dominated by foreign influences, interests and forces?
Among the answers to his questions, Corm mentions the devastating impact of the Arab rentier economies that are not productive or creative, but live off “rent” derived from foreign payments or protection, or from oil and gas production. Rent economies make it impossible to develop liberal, democratic regimes, he says, and so must be replaced with job-creating, productive economies.
Arab nationalists never sufficiently focused on the economic dimension of nationalism, independence and statehood, he says, and Arab intellectuals today spend too much time responding to Western accusations and focus too much on day-to-day politics. Instead, our intellectuals and activists should ignore Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis and others of their ilk, and spend more time building our culture and society. We should especially draw on the rich but neglected Arab tradition of thinkers who have sought in the past century to prod reform, modernity, prosperity and genuine national sovereignty anchored in dignity.
The Arab people need and deserve a “second Nahda of Arab freedoms”, he says, referring to the broad intellectual, cultural, political and religious movement in parts of the Arab world around 1880-1920 that has been called the Arab Awakening or Renaissance, Al Nahda in Arabic. Our own continuous quest for modernity and liberalism can be compatible with key religious and cultural values. He defined modernity as that which allows you to promote prosperity, compete globally, defend yourself militarily, and defend the overall integrity of your society from foreign domination.
Maksoud, university professor, columnist, former Arab League ambassador and current director of the Centre for the Study of the Global South at American University in Washington, DC, approaches the same challenge through the eyes of the team that wrote the Arab Human Development Reports, of which he is a member.
“The Arabs are a wealthy nation of poor people,” he notes, who recklessly engage in either confrontation with the West or submission to it, with both options leading to self-destruction. We need to find a way to reconcile the legality of the modern Arab state system with the legitimacy of the wider Arab national idea, he says. The Arab Human Development Report offers an action-oriented analysis that aims to spark a dialogue between the Arab citizen, civil society and the state authorities.
One of our common weaknesses — very evident in Lebanon, he says — is that the individual Arab citizen does not have a direct relationship with his or her state except through the intermediation of ethnic, religious or tribal groups. The narrow identities and interests of sovereign states have come to dominate the two other important dimensions of people's lives in the Arab region — their rights as citizens of a state, and their sense of belonging to a larger Arab national identity of some sort.
He says that “the weakness of patrimonial Arab consciousness has given way to the strength of legal state sovereignty.” Consequently, Arab countries wave their flags vigorously, advocating “Jordan first”, “Lebanon first”, “Syria first” and “Egypt first”; yet their citizens steadily become increasingly angry with life conditions at home and the international double standards they suffer from Israel and the West.
“Anger is an invitation to dialogue,” he suggests, and one of the aims of the Arab Human Development Reports is to spark dialogue that can also plant the seeds of an Arab Renaissance.
Corm brings the argument back to the historical legacy of an Arab region that wants to change, reform and modernise, but has always resisted doing so under foreign pressure or threat. Totally adopting or rejecting Western reform agendas is not useful, he says, and instead we need to spur a genuine Arab reform agenda for modernity and freedoms that primarily builds on our own values, analyses, and priority goals.
These are sensible and timely ideas, doubly significant because they are not unique or unusual; they reflect the richness of the debates that take place every day in homes, schools, coffee shops and offices throughout the Arab world. They also provide a powerful, appropriate antidote to the prevailing nonsense that we hear from quarters of the West, especially the United States, about clashes of civilisation, the need for Islamic reformation, hatred of the West, the madrasa problem, or the inherent violence of Arab and Islamic culture.
The matter is much simpler, and should not be muddled by tangential intellectual fantasies or the silliness of confused, angry small town politicians from abroad: In the past century or so, citizenship and statehood in the Arab world have become mutually dysfunctional enterprises, due to a combination of local and foreign factors that must be treated simultaneously.
The writer is Editor-at-Large for The Daily Star, Beirut.
What's wrong with the Arabs? Why do so many Islamic societies spawn terrorists? Why are our societies so violent and unstable? What is needed to transform the societies of the Middle East, North Africa and west-central Asia into stable, prosperous countries?
These are the sorts of sweeping, big sticker questions that many people within the Middle East ask every day, looking simultaneously at internal factors as well as external causes of our many excesses. It was heartening and instructive for me earlier this week to have the privilege of sharing in a panel discussion with two of the clearest thinking, most articulate analysts in the Arab world — George Corm and Clovis Maksoud, both Lebanese — as we discussed the impact of the last three Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The issues they raised and the analytical suggestions they made deserve a wider hearing than the students and staff participating in a summer course on conflict-resolution organised in Lebanon by UNDP and Lebanese American University. I suspect their way of thinking correctly identifies the key challenges facing the Arab world, reflects the views of the vast majority of Arabs, and offers a practical, realistic route out of the Arab world's current dilemma of stagnation, frustration and confrontation.
Corm, a professor of economics at St Joseph University in Beirut and a former Lebanese Cabinet minister, makes the point that the Arab region undoubtedly needs real reform, but there is no consensus on the reasons for this. Is current and historical foreign interference the main problem, he asks? Domestic power distortions? Patriarchal social culture? Polarised societies fragmenting into smaller and smaller units based on ethnicity, religion and ideology? Hostility among Arab states and leaderships?
A combination of these and other reasons explains the burdensome, humiliating fact that the Arab region is the only part of the world where foreign armies today still regularly invade, occupy, and try to remake societies. More troubling is his observation that Arabs today face virtually the same challenge that confronted our societies around 150 years ago, in the late Ottoman period: Why are Arab societies underdeveloped, and dominated by foreign influences, interests and forces?
Among the answers to his questions, Corm mentions the devastating impact of the Arab rentier economies that are not productive or creative, but live off “rent” derived from foreign payments or protection, or from oil and gas production. Rent economies make it impossible to develop liberal, democratic regimes, he says, and so must be replaced with job-creating, productive economies.
Arab nationalists never sufficiently focused on the economic dimension of nationalism, independence and statehood, he says, and Arab intellectuals today spend too much time responding to Western accusations and focus too much on day-to-day politics. Instead, our intellectuals and activists should ignore Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis and others of their ilk, and spend more time building our culture and society. We should especially draw on the rich but neglected Arab tradition of thinkers who have sought in the past century to prod reform, modernity, prosperity and genuine national sovereignty anchored in dignity.
The Arab people need and deserve a “second Nahda of Arab freedoms”, he says, referring to the broad intellectual, cultural, political and religious movement in parts of the Arab world around 1880-1920 that has been called the Arab Awakening or Renaissance, Al Nahda in Arabic. Our own continuous quest for modernity and liberalism can be compatible with key religious and cultural values. He defined modernity as that which allows you to promote prosperity, compete globally, defend yourself militarily, and defend the overall integrity of your society from foreign domination.
Maksoud, university professor, columnist, former Arab League ambassador and current director of the Centre for the Study of the Global South at American University in Washington, DC, approaches the same challenge through the eyes of the team that wrote the Arab Human Development Reports, of which he is a member.
“The Arabs are a wealthy nation of poor people,” he notes, who recklessly engage in either confrontation with the West or submission to it, with both options leading to self-destruction. We need to find a way to reconcile the legality of the modern Arab state system with the legitimacy of the wider Arab national idea, he says. The Arab Human Development Report offers an action-oriented analysis that aims to spark a dialogue between the Arab citizen, civil society and the state authorities.
One of our common weaknesses — very evident in Lebanon, he says — is that the individual Arab citizen does not have a direct relationship with his or her state except through the intermediation of ethnic, religious or tribal groups. The narrow identities and interests of sovereign states have come to dominate the two other important dimensions of people's lives in the Arab region — their rights as citizens of a state, and their sense of belonging to a larger Arab national identity of some sort.
He says that “the weakness of patrimonial Arab consciousness has given way to the strength of legal state sovereignty.” Consequently, Arab countries wave their flags vigorously, advocating “Jordan first”, “Lebanon first”, “Syria first” and “Egypt first”; yet their citizens steadily become increasingly angry with life conditions at home and the international double standards they suffer from Israel and the West.
“Anger is an invitation to dialogue,” he suggests, and one of the aims of the Arab Human Development Reports is to spark dialogue that can also plant the seeds of an Arab Renaissance.
Corm brings the argument back to the historical legacy of an Arab region that wants to change, reform and modernise, but has always resisted doing so under foreign pressure or threat. Totally adopting or rejecting Western reform agendas is not useful, he says, and instead we need to spur a genuine Arab reform agenda for modernity and freedoms that primarily builds on our own values, analyses, and priority goals.
These are sensible and timely ideas, doubly significant because they are not unique or unusual; they reflect the richness of the debates that take place every day in homes, schools, coffee shops and offices throughout the Arab world. They also provide a powerful, appropriate antidote to the prevailing nonsense that we hear from quarters of the West, especially the United States, about clashes of civilisation, the need for Islamic reformation, hatred of the West, the madrasa problem, or the inherent violence of Arab and Islamic culture.
The matter is much simpler, and should not be muddled by tangential intellectual fantasies or the silliness of confused, angry small town politicians from abroad: In the past century or so, citizenship and statehood in the Arab world have become mutually dysfunctional enterprises, due to a combination of local and foreign factors that must be treated simultaneously.
Monday, August 22, 2005
NGO SUES OVER PROSTITUTION POLICY
By William Fisher
A non-governmental organization is suing the U.S. Government’s “anti-prostitution” policy, charging that it is an ”unconstitutional infringement of speech” that is undermining international efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The NGO, DKT International, filed the suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its administrator, challenging the requirement that U.S. and foreign NGOs receiving USAID funding from adopt a policy “explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”
USAID adopted the rule requirement in June, as one of a number of policies advocated by the ‘pro-life’ religious right. Other Bush Administration initiatives include endorsement of the so-called Mexico Protocol, which forbids abortion counseling in family planning programs overseas.
U.S. observance of the protocol -- termed “the global gag rule” by family planning professionals -- was rescinded during the Clinton Administration but
re-authorized under President George W. Bush on his first day in office in January 2001.
Under the rule, foreign family planning agencies may not receive U.S. funds if, with their own funds, they counsel on or refer for abortion, advocate for more lenient abortion laws in their own country, or provide abortion services.
DKT’s president, Philip D. Harvey, said the anti-prostitution and sex trafficking policy “does a grave disservice to international AIDs-prevention programs and to those who carry them out. The policy does no good, and is clearly doing considerable harm.”
He added,” I have found that non-governmental organizations around the world really despise this anti-prostitution pledge. In addition to making their work harder, it undermines their integrity, insults them really.”
DKT International is a non-profit organization based in Washington DC. It manages contraceptive social marketing programs for family planning and AIDS prevention in eleven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. DKT’s programs currently serve just under 10 million couples, with an operating budget of $50 million.
Harvey said ameliorating the impact of HIV/AIDS requires “work with persons at highest risk of infection, including those in the sex trades. We deal with sex workers as equals. We accept what they do as part of the reality of today’s world, and we do our best to empower them so they can adopt practices that will minimize the risk of HIV transmission for themselves and their partners and improve their chances of getting access to life-saving health services. To do this work under an ‘anti-prostitution’ policy would be dysfunctional.”
He added, “Such a policy further stigmatizes the very people we are trying to help. It requires us to condemn what sex workers do for a living, thus undermining the relationship of trust and mutual respect required to effectively conduct AIDS-prevention work. DKT will not allow its field workers to be put in that position.”
The U.S. policy, he declared, “harms America’s image and America’s interests abroad. No one pretends that such a policy will contain or ameliorate the darker aspects of the world’s oldest profession. It represents posturing by American politicians who are increasingly seen around the world as patronizing, bullying, and obsessed with sex.”
“By coercing the speech of private parties”, he added, “the policy violates the First Amendment rights -- and the integrity -- of the organizations that are forced into compliance.”
DKT’s programs are supported by the Packard, Hewlett, and Gates foundations, and by the German KfW, the British DFID, and the Dutch, Irish, and Indian Governments.
As a result of refusing to adopt (and certify) USAID’s policy on prostitution, DKT has lost USAID support for its AIDS-prevention work in Vietnam. Its lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to permit it to resume this work.
Meanwhile, in Kabul, Afghanistan, seven reproductive health care centers, formerly supported by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), were reopened this month with help from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
Run by a local NGO, the Afghan Family Guidance Association (AFGA), the clinics were forced to close in June due to IPPF “funding problems”. IPPF’s U.S. affiliate, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, did not respond to telephone calls or emails regarding the nature of its funding problems.
"The UNFPA funding, US $50,000 for the next six months, is a vital bridging assistance this year until we are fully registered with IPPF in 2006 and get our budget from its core fund," said Ahmad Zeya Yousufzai, AFGA’s executive director.
But according to AFGA, very little is happening on the issue of reproductive health care outside the capital, making the challenge and need for further funding even greater.
Afghanistan has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world and according to a recent Afghanistan national human development report, one woman dies in the country every 20 minutes.
According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), child mortality was very high in the war-ravaged country. Afghanistan’s first national human development report, released in early March, indicated that 20 percent of children died before the age of five.
Yousufzai believes one of the reasons behind maternal and child mortality, as well as morbidity, is a lack of family planning and giving birth to too many children without a gap of two to three years between each live birth.
AFGA centers receive more than 700 women visitors each day. The centers offer guidance and services on family planning, HIV/AIDS awareness, youth and adolescence, reproductive and sexual health and gender-based violence advocacy.
Meanwhile, the anti-abortion Population Research Institute (PRI) is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Afghanistan “to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of UN agencies and anti-child NGOs.”
PRI said, “The recent legalization of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst…Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Although, according to reports, three doctors must certify that the abortion is a medical necessity, such regulations have quickly degenerated in other countries to abortion on demand.”
The Bush Administration has withheld, for the third consecutive year, funds earmarked for UNFPA. It said the $34 million would be used for other purposes.
The decision was not unexpected, given the administration's efforts to fire up its Christian-right-wing base in advance of last November's presidential election.
UNFPA says it does not support abortion. It believes that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning. UNFPA promotes improved access to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies and eliminate the need for abortion.
A non-governmental organization is suing the U.S. Government’s “anti-prostitution” policy, charging that it is an ”unconstitutional infringement of speech” that is undermining international efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The NGO, DKT International, filed the suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its administrator, challenging the requirement that U.S. and foreign NGOs receiving USAID funding from adopt a policy “explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”
USAID adopted the rule requirement in June, as one of a number of policies advocated by the ‘pro-life’ religious right. Other Bush Administration initiatives include endorsement of the so-called Mexico Protocol, which forbids abortion counseling in family planning programs overseas.
U.S. observance of the protocol -- termed “the global gag rule” by family planning professionals -- was rescinded during the Clinton Administration but
re-authorized under President George W. Bush on his first day in office in January 2001.
Under the rule, foreign family planning agencies may not receive U.S. funds if, with their own funds, they counsel on or refer for abortion, advocate for more lenient abortion laws in their own country, or provide abortion services.
DKT’s president, Philip D. Harvey, said the anti-prostitution and sex trafficking policy “does a grave disservice to international AIDs-prevention programs and to those who carry them out. The policy does no good, and is clearly doing considerable harm.”
He added,” I have found that non-governmental organizations around the world really despise this anti-prostitution pledge. In addition to making their work harder, it undermines their integrity, insults them really.”
DKT International is a non-profit organization based in Washington DC. It manages contraceptive social marketing programs for family planning and AIDS prevention in eleven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. DKT’s programs currently serve just under 10 million couples, with an operating budget of $50 million.
Harvey said ameliorating the impact of HIV/AIDS requires “work with persons at highest risk of infection, including those in the sex trades. We deal with sex workers as equals. We accept what they do as part of the reality of today’s world, and we do our best to empower them so they can adopt practices that will minimize the risk of HIV transmission for themselves and their partners and improve their chances of getting access to life-saving health services. To do this work under an ‘anti-prostitution’ policy would be dysfunctional.”
He added, “Such a policy further stigmatizes the very people we are trying to help. It requires us to condemn what sex workers do for a living, thus undermining the relationship of trust and mutual respect required to effectively conduct AIDS-prevention work. DKT will not allow its field workers to be put in that position.”
The U.S. policy, he declared, “harms America’s image and America’s interests abroad. No one pretends that such a policy will contain or ameliorate the darker aspects of the world’s oldest profession. It represents posturing by American politicians who are increasingly seen around the world as patronizing, bullying, and obsessed with sex.”
“By coercing the speech of private parties”, he added, “the policy violates the First Amendment rights -- and the integrity -- of the organizations that are forced into compliance.”
DKT’s programs are supported by the Packard, Hewlett, and Gates foundations, and by the German KfW, the British DFID, and the Dutch, Irish, and Indian Governments.
As a result of refusing to adopt (and certify) USAID’s policy on prostitution, DKT has lost USAID support for its AIDS-prevention work in Vietnam. Its lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to permit it to resume this work.
Meanwhile, in Kabul, Afghanistan, seven reproductive health care centers, formerly supported by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), were reopened this month with help from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
Run by a local NGO, the Afghan Family Guidance Association (AFGA), the clinics were forced to close in June due to IPPF “funding problems”. IPPF’s U.S. affiliate, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, did not respond to telephone calls or emails regarding the nature of its funding problems.
"The UNFPA funding, US $50,000 for the next six months, is a vital bridging assistance this year until we are fully registered with IPPF in 2006 and get our budget from its core fund," said Ahmad Zeya Yousufzai, AFGA’s executive director.
But according to AFGA, very little is happening on the issue of reproductive health care outside the capital, making the challenge and need for further funding even greater.
Afghanistan has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world and according to a recent Afghanistan national human development report, one woman dies in the country every 20 minutes.
According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), child mortality was very high in the war-ravaged country. Afghanistan’s first national human development report, released in early March, indicated that 20 percent of children died before the age of five.
Yousufzai believes one of the reasons behind maternal and child mortality, as well as morbidity, is a lack of family planning and giving birth to too many children without a gap of two to three years between each live birth.
AFGA centers receive more than 700 women visitors each day. The centers offer guidance and services on family planning, HIV/AIDS awareness, youth and adolescence, reproductive and sexual health and gender-based violence advocacy.
Meanwhile, the anti-abortion Population Research Institute (PRI) is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Afghanistan “to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of UN agencies and anti-child NGOs.”
PRI said, “The recent legalization of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst…Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Although, according to reports, three doctors must certify that the abortion is a medical necessity, such regulations have quickly degenerated in other countries to abortion on demand.”
The Bush Administration has withheld, for the third consecutive year, funds earmarked for UNFPA. It said the $34 million would be used for other purposes.
The decision was not unexpected, given the administration's efforts to fire up its Christian-right-wing base in advance of last November's presidential election.
UNFPA says it does not support abortion. It believes that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning. UNFPA promotes improved access to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies and eliminate the need for abortion.
HOT BUTTON CONGRESS
By William Fisher
When Congress returns to work in early September, it will face debate on a number of hot-button issues likely to inflame passions on the political left and right and deepen the country’s ideological divide.
The probable agenda includes reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, immigration and border control, embryonic stem cell research, a number of critical legal reforms, consideration of a new report from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detailing its handling of pre-9/11 intelligence – and, of course, the confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Groups on the political right and left have been busy loading their heavy artillery for the Roberts hearings. During August, they have been poring over some 60,000 pages of documents provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the government and the Reagan Library, looking for clues to Roberts’s judicial, social, and political views. Key areas of concern include civil rights, affirmative action, privacy, separation of church and state, a woman’s right to choose abortion, federal versus states’ rights, the authority of the judiciary branch of government, and the powers of the president and the executive branch versus those of congress.
Roberts was nominated by President George W. Bush in July. Confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are scheduled to begin September 6. Roberts would be replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, who announced she would retire when her replacement was confirmed.
Advocacy groups on the left and right have raised tens of millions of dollars to make their views known to the senate and the people. One of them, the pro-choice NARAL, stumbled early in the process by launching – and then withdrawing -- a series of television ads implying that Roberts sided with violent extremists and a convicted abortion clinic bomber while serving in the Solicitor General's office, an accusation that Roberts's supporters immediately condemned as a flagrant distortion. The group fears that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
A second major controversy will surround the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Hurriedly passed with little debate five weeks after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the measure gave law enforcement sweeping new powers to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists and those who support them. A number of its provisions are due to expire at the end of this year.
Both houses of Congress have passed bills to renew the expiring parts of the Patriot Act. House and Senate leaders will meet to reconcile the considerable differences between the two bills.
In general, the House version would not only renew the expiring provisions, but would give law enforcement expanded new authorities. The Senate version is titled more toward reform of provisions that civil libertarians find troubling.
For example, it would require statements of fact on the relevancy of personal records in foreign intelligence investigations, offer suspects a right to challenge orders for personal records, provide more judicial oversight and checks on abuse in personal record searches, and mandate shorter delays for notification of secret "sneak and peek" searches.
Immigration will be another major issue facing Congress. The Judiciary Committee will be grappling with two conflicting approaches. One, introduced by two border-state Republicans, Sens. John Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, would require workers in the U.S. illegally to return home before being permitted to participate in a new guest worker program. It would also allocate substantial new money for border control, interior and workplace enforcement, emphasizing "mandatory return" of an estimated 10 million illegal workers, and the other a authorizing a ‘guest worker’ program to provide undocumented immigrants a way to gain legal status. The other, introduced by Sens. Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, proposes a guest worker program while beefing up enforcement.
President Bush proposed a guest worker program over a year and a half ago, but ran into stiff opposition from House Republicans, who attacked it as an "amnesty" and demanded an enforcement crackdown.
Both sides acknowledge that the current system is dysfunctional. The wide availability of jobs in the United States, and the large pool of willing workers from Latin America and elsewhere, has swamped the availability of legal slots, leading to rampant violation of immigration laws and overwhelming the government's ability to enforce them.
There are some 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the U.S. and the number is believed to be growing rapidly.
Congress will also be focusing on the CIA’s pre-9/11 failures, with delivery of the long-overdue inspector general's report, now been completed nearly two years after the deadline set by congress.
The report has yet to be sent to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees because CIA Director Porter J. Goss is still deciding how to respond to its findings, according to administration and congressional sources. It is expected to
go to Congress shortly.
The CIA director was mandated to report to Congress on steps taken to assign
responsibility for poor performance and to reward excellence.
Appropriating federal funds for embryonic stem cell research is also likely to raise the congressional temperature and mobilizing advocacy groups on the right and the left. Senate Major Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and cardiac surgeon, announced just before recess that he would break with President Bush and authorize the use of federal money to fund research on embryos due to be discarded by fertility clinics and hospitals.
This initiative is fiercely opposed by groups on the religious right and endorsed by most physicians and scientists. President Bush has said he would veto such a measure because he believes it would “destroy life to create life”.
Another civil liberties-related bill, the so-called Streamlined Procedures Act, is also likely to provoke controversy and attract media attention because it would limit the centuries-old right to habeas corpus by barring federal courts from reviewing most capital sentencing, creating shorter timetables for appeals, or imposing onerous procedural roadblocks to prevent federal courts from considering key issues.
Habeas corpus, through which inmates challenge the legality of their detentions, has become the essential vehicle by which convicts on death row or serving lengthy prison terms attack their state-court convictions. Many innocent people owe their freedom to their ability to file habeas petitions.
When Congress returns to work in early September, it will face debate on a number of hot-button issues likely to inflame passions on the political left and right and deepen the country’s ideological divide.
The probable agenda includes reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, immigration and border control, embryonic stem cell research, a number of critical legal reforms, consideration of a new report from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detailing its handling of pre-9/11 intelligence – and, of course, the confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Groups on the political right and left have been busy loading their heavy artillery for the Roberts hearings. During August, they have been poring over some 60,000 pages of documents provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the government and the Reagan Library, looking for clues to Roberts’s judicial, social, and political views. Key areas of concern include civil rights, affirmative action, privacy, separation of church and state, a woman’s right to choose abortion, federal versus states’ rights, the authority of the judiciary branch of government, and the powers of the president and the executive branch versus those of congress.
Roberts was nominated by President George W. Bush in July. Confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are scheduled to begin September 6. Roberts would be replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, who announced she would retire when her replacement was confirmed.
Advocacy groups on the left and right have raised tens of millions of dollars to make their views known to the senate and the people. One of them, the pro-choice NARAL, stumbled early in the process by launching – and then withdrawing -- a series of television ads implying that Roberts sided with violent extremists and a convicted abortion clinic bomber while serving in the Solicitor General's office, an accusation that Roberts's supporters immediately condemned as a flagrant distortion. The group fears that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
A second major controversy will surround the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Hurriedly passed with little debate five weeks after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the measure gave law enforcement sweeping new powers to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists and those who support them. A number of its provisions are due to expire at the end of this year.
Both houses of Congress have passed bills to renew the expiring parts of the Patriot Act. House and Senate leaders will meet to reconcile the considerable differences between the two bills.
In general, the House version would not only renew the expiring provisions, but would give law enforcement expanded new authorities. The Senate version is titled more toward reform of provisions that civil libertarians find troubling.
For example, it would require statements of fact on the relevancy of personal records in foreign intelligence investigations, offer suspects a right to challenge orders for personal records, provide more judicial oversight and checks on abuse in personal record searches, and mandate shorter delays for notification of secret "sneak and peek" searches.
Immigration will be another major issue facing Congress. The Judiciary Committee will be grappling with two conflicting approaches. One, introduced by two border-state Republicans, Sens. John Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, would require workers in the U.S. illegally to return home before being permitted to participate in a new guest worker program. It would also allocate substantial new money for border control, interior and workplace enforcement, emphasizing "mandatory return" of an estimated 10 million illegal workers, and the other a authorizing a ‘guest worker’ program to provide undocumented immigrants a way to gain legal status. The other, introduced by Sens. Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, proposes a guest worker program while beefing up enforcement.
President Bush proposed a guest worker program over a year and a half ago, but ran into stiff opposition from House Republicans, who attacked it as an "amnesty" and demanded an enforcement crackdown.
Both sides acknowledge that the current system is dysfunctional. The wide availability of jobs in the United States, and the large pool of willing workers from Latin America and elsewhere, has swamped the availability of legal slots, leading to rampant violation of immigration laws and overwhelming the government's ability to enforce them.
There are some 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the U.S. and the number is believed to be growing rapidly.
Congress will also be focusing on the CIA’s pre-9/11 failures, with delivery of the long-overdue inspector general's report, now been completed nearly two years after the deadline set by congress.
The report has yet to be sent to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees because CIA Director Porter J. Goss is still deciding how to respond to its findings, according to administration and congressional sources. It is expected to
go to Congress shortly.
The CIA director was mandated to report to Congress on steps taken to assign
responsibility for poor performance and to reward excellence.
Appropriating federal funds for embryonic stem cell research is also likely to raise the congressional temperature and mobilizing advocacy groups on the right and the left. Senate Major Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and cardiac surgeon, announced just before recess that he would break with President Bush and authorize the use of federal money to fund research on embryos due to be discarded by fertility clinics and hospitals.
This initiative is fiercely opposed by groups on the religious right and endorsed by most physicians and scientists. President Bush has said he would veto such a measure because he believes it would “destroy life to create life”.
Another civil liberties-related bill, the so-called Streamlined Procedures Act, is also likely to provoke controversy and attract media attention because it would limit the centuries-old right to habeas corpus by barring federal courts from reviewing most capital sentencing, creating shorter timetables for appeals, or imposing onerous procedural roadblocks to prevent federal courts from considering key issues.
Habeas corpus, through which inmates challenge the legality of their detentions, has become the essential vehicle by which convicts on death row or serving lengthy prison terms attack their state-court convictions. Many innocent people owe their freedom to their ability to file habeas petitions.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
DIPLOMATIC ASSURANCES: WORTHLESS
By William Fisher
Countries that rely on ‘diplomatic assurances’ that other countries won’t torture transferred prisoners “are either engaging in wishful thinking or using the assurances as a figleaf to cover their complicity,” a new report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) charges.
HRW said, “There is substantial evidence that in the course of the global “war on terrorism,” an increasing number of governments have transferred, or proposed sending, alleged terrorist suspects to countries where they know the suspects will be at risk of torture or ill-treatment.”
In countries with “a serious and persistent” history of prisoner abuse, “diplomatic assurances do not and cannot prevent torture. The practice should stop,” the report said.
Recipient countries have included Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Yemen, where torture is a systemic human rights problem. Transfers have also been carried out or proposed to Algeria, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia, and Turkey, “where members of particular groups — Islamists, Chechens, Kurds — are routinely singled out for the worst forms of abuse”.
The HRW report comes on the heels of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s proposal, following the London underground bombings, to deport people who advocate violence.
HRW said “the use of diplomatic assurances against torture is a global phenomenon, with sending countries in North America and Europe leading the charge”.
It added, “The issue of diplomatic assurances against torture gained notoriety recently when U.S. officials acknowledged a large number of transfers of suspects to countries where torture is a serious human rights problem, claiming that U.S. authorities regularly sought and received diplomatic assurances of humane treatment from receiving governments prior to the transfers. In an increasing number of those cases, the suspects have credibly alleged that they were tortured.”
In a separate statement, HRW criticized the August 10th ‘memorandum of understanding’ reached between the United Kingdom and Jordan.
It said the U.K. “cannot deport security suspects to Jordan without violating the international prohibition against sending persons to countries where they face a serious risk of torture.”
.
The agreement, HRW said, “does nothing to reduce that risk or to change the obligation not to expose people to torture”.
“There is still torture in Jordan, especially with regard to security suspects,”
said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division.
“All the good reasons that prevented the U.K. from deporting people to Jordan
before August 10 remain unchanged by this agreement.”
The U.K. and Jordan are both parties to the Convention against Torture and
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. “Under international law, the prohibition against torture is absolute and cannot be waived under any circumstances”, HRW said.
Britain recently detained several foreign residents who may now face deportation. Jordan’s State Security Court, composed of two military and one civilian judge, had sentenced two of the men in absentia to 15-year and life sentences respectively for involvement in terrorist activities in 2000 and 2001.
HRW pointed out that “criminals convicted in absentia have the right to a full retrial once they come into Jordanian custody.”
HRW said that the U.K.-Jordan agreement “represents an effort to get around the Convention against Torture’s strict non-refoulement obligation and
has no mechanism for accountability”.
“Jordan stands to gain custody of criminal suspects while Britain rids itself of unwelcome persons, and neither country has any incentive to monitor treatment or investigate allegations of abuse.”
HRW’s Stork said, “Jordan’s General Intelligence Department, prisons and ordinary police stations all have known records of abuse. By seeking Jordanian promises to treat these returned persons differently, the U.K. is confirming that the risk of torture continues.”
In September 2004, the National Human Rights Center, an official body, announced that Abdullah al-Mushaqaba had died in Juwaida Prison as a result of torture. Detainees of that same prison told the Arab Organization for Human Rights in Jordan, a local non-governmental organization, in August 2005 that that they were severely beaten.
Last year, the Center received 250 allegations of torture or ill-treatment in Jordanian detentions. These numbers do not include the General Intelligence Directorate, which did not allow any visits by non-governmental human rights monitors. The Intelligence Directorate is often the first place of detention for security detainees.
Human Rights Watch said that the U.K. plans to conclude similar agreements with other countries across the region, including Egypt and Algeria.
“Jordan, Egypt and Algeria all have a documented history of torture,” said
Stork. “Neither Britain nor any other country should consider returning people
to such countries where they face the risk of torture.”
The HRW report, “Still At Risk”, says, “The global effort to apprehend, interrogate, and prosecute persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities is a vital project. It is incumbent on states to work individually and collectively to ensure that such persons, if proven guilty, are brought to justice. It is also incumbent on them, however, to ensure that basic rights are upheld”.
The past two years have seen widespread exposure of the once-secret practice of “rendition’ – sending or taking prisoners to third countries.
The December 2001 expulsions of two Egyptian asylum seekers from Sweden based on assurances against torture caused a national scandal after the men alleged that they had been tortured and ill-treated in Egyptian custody. It has been reliably reported that the men were kidnapped from Sweden by the CIA and flown to Egypt n the agency’s leased Gulfstream jet.
The U.S. is also faulted for its pervasive use of diplomatic assurances in rendition and immigration cases, and to effect returns of detainees from Guantánamo Bay.
HRW also says that in Europe there is “an alarming and growing trend toward securing diplomatic assurances against torture and ill-treatment to effect extraditions, deportations, and expulsions, despite Europe’s claim to having the most advanced human rights protection system in the world”.
Countries that rely on ‘diplomatic assurances’ that other countries won’t torture transferred prisoners “are either engaging in wishful thinking or using the assurances as a figleaf to cover their complicity,” a new report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) charges.
HRW said, “There is substantial evidence that in the course of the global “war on terrorism,” an increasing number of governments have transferred, or proposed sending, alleged terrorist suspects to countries where they know the suspects will be at risk of torture or ill-treatment.”
In countries with “a serious and persistent” history of prisoner abuse, “diplomatic assurances do not and cannot prevent torture. The practice should stop,” the report said.
Recipient countries have included Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Yemen, where torture is a systemic human rights problem. Transfers have also been carried out or proposed to Algeria, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia, and Turkey, “where members of particular groups — Islamists, Chechens, Kurds — are routinely singled out for the worst forms of abuse”.
The HRW report comes on the heels of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s proposal, following the London underground bombings, to deport people who advocate violence.
HRW said “the use of diplomatic assurances against torture is a global phenomenon, with sending countries in North America and Europe leading the charge”.
It added, “The issue of diplomatic assurances against torture gained notoriety recently when U.S. officials acknowledged a large number of transfers of suspects to countries where torture is a serious human rights problem, claiming that U.S. authorities regularly sought and received diplomatic assurances of humane treatment from receiving governments prior to the transfers. In an increasing number of those cases, the suspects have credibly alleged that they were tortured.”
In a separate statement, HRW criticized the August 10th ‘memorandum of understanding’ reached between the United Kingdom and Jordan.
It said the U.K. “cannot deport security suspects to Jordan without violating the international prohibition against sending persons to countries where they face a serious risk of torture.”
.
The agreement, HRW said, “does nothing to reduce that risk or to change the obligation not to expose people to torture”.
“There is still torture in Jordan, especially with regard to security suspects,”
said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division.
“All the good reasons that prevented the U.K. from deporting people to Jordan
before August 10 remain unchanged by this agreement.”
The U.K. and Jordan are both parties to the Convention against Torture and
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. “Under international law, the prohibition against torture is absolute and cannot be waived under any circumstances”, HRW said.
Britain recently detained several foreign residents who may now face deportation. Jordan’s State Security Court, composed of two military and one civilian judge, had sentenced two of the men in absentia to 15-year and life sentences respectively for involvement in terrorist activities in 2000 and 2001.
HRW pointed out that “criminals convicted in absentia have the right to a full retrial once they come into Jordanian custody.”
HRW said that the U.K.-Jordan agreement “represents an effort to get around the Convention against Torture’s strict non-refoulement obligation and
has no mechanism for accountability”.
“Jordan stands to gain custody of criminal suspects while Britain rids itself of unwelcome persons, and neither country has any incentive to monitor treatment or investigate allegations of abuse.”
HRW’s Stork said, “Jordan’s General Intelligence Department, prisons and ordinary police stations all have known records of abuse. By seeking Jordanian promises to treat these returned persons differently, the U.K. is confirming that the risk of torture continues.”
In September 2004, the National Human Rights Center, an official body, announced that Abdullah al-Mushaqaba had died in Juwaida Prison as a result of torture. Detainees of that same prison told the Arab Organization for Human Rights in Jordan, a local non-governmental organization, in August 2005 that that they were severely beaten.
Last year, the Center received 250 allegations of torture or ill-treatment in Jordanian detentions. These numbers do not include the General Intelligence Directorate, which did not allow any visits by non-governmental human rights monitors. The Intelligence Directorate is often the first place of detention for security detainees.
Human Rights Watch said that the U.K. plans to conclude similar agreements with other countries across the region, including Egypt and Algeria.
“Jordan, Egypt and Algeria all have a documented history of torture,” said
Stork. “Neither Britain nor any other country should consider returning people
to such countries where they face the risk of torture.”
The HRW report, “Still At Risk”, says, “The global effort to apprehend, interrogate, and prosecute persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities is a vital project. It is incumbent on states to work individually and collectively to ensure that such persons, if proven guilty, are brought to justice. It is also incumbent on them, however, to ensure that basic rights are upheld”.
The past two years have seen widespread exposure of the once-secret practice of “rendition’ – sending or taking prisoners to third countries.
The December 2001 expulsions of two Egyptian asylum seekers from Sweden based on assurances against torture caused a national scandal after the men alleged that they had been tortured and ill-treated in Egyptian custody. It has been reliably reported that the men were kidnapped from Sweden by the CIA and flown to Egypt n the agency’s leased Gulfstream jet.
The U.S. is also faulted for its pervasive use of diplomatic assurances in rendition and immigration cases, and to effect returns of detainees from Guantánamo Bay.
HRW also says that in Europe there is “an alarming and growing trend toward securing diplomatic assurances against torture and ill-treatment to effect extraditions, deportations, and expulsions, despite Europe’s claim to having the most advanced human rights protection system in the world”.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
AIR FORCE ACADEMY (AGAIN)
By William Fisher
A retired Army major general is throwing fuel on the hot issue of religious discrimination at the U.S. Air Force Academy by writing to commanders there to urge their backing a Christian evangelical rally for military personnel sponsored by Rev. Billy Graham's ministry – and signing his letters “Your Partner in the Gospel”.
The academy, which has been dogged by allegations of harassment against non-Christian cadets, charged that Bob Dees has sent promotional literature to commanders at the Academy, saying the event “will spiritually refresh you and equip you to share your faith in Jesus Christ with your brothers and sisters in arms.”
In his letter, Dees, wrote, “We wholeheartedly recommend that you give (the event) the widest possible distribution within your command…This seminar is designed to provide assistance to chaplains and other military personnel who are followers of Jesus Christ to enable them more effectively serve their religious faith groups while serving their country…Your support in making this known to your chaplains for dissemination.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), an advocacy group that has played a leading role in exposing religious bias at the Academy, warned military officials not to promote a Christian evangelistic rally for military personnel sponsored by Billy Graham's ministry, now run by Rev. Graham’s son, Franklin Graham.
AU said it took action after learning that Dees, who is now executive director
of the Military Ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ International, had sent
e-mails to installation commanders nationwide, not only at the Air Force Academy, informing them of a Sept. 9-11 “Serving God and Country” seminar in Asheville, N.C.
Promotional material for the event says other speakers will include U.S. Army
General Robert Van Antwerp, who will speak about how “to lead and influence others with the character and life of Jesus Christ.”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, AU’s executive director, said, “The military must never favor one faith over others. The Graham Ministries' event is intended to teach Christian evangelism, and that's not something the military should be involved in.”
In a letter sent to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and base
commanders nationwide today, AU's Lynn pointed out that the Constitution forbids government to promote religion.
Lynn’s letter said that promoting this Christian event to members of the military “could convey an unconstitutional message of governmental endorsement
of religion, and to therefore urge you to ensure that military leaders do not encourage members of the military or their spouses to attend the event or
otherwise promote it in any way.”
Lynn’s letter says it would be “highly inappropriate for the military to
endorse a rally sponsored by Franklin Graham, a harsh and controversial
critic of Islam, at a time when the nation is fighting a war in a Muslim region
of the world.”
The 4000-cadet Air Force Academy, which trains future officers, is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a town that is also home to a number of the nation’s
most high-profile Christian evangelical organizations.
In response to recent accusation of religious discrimination at the Academy, a military task force led by Lt. Gen. Roger Brady reported that the Academy
failed to accommodate the diverse religious needs of cadets and staff.
“Religious slurs and disparaging remarks have no place at the Air Force Academy”, Gen. Brady said.
Retired Chaplain Jack C. Williamson told legislators that the current problems
at the academy were result of “years of practice that have gone unchallenged”,
adding that the problem “goes far beyond tolerance”.
Dr. Christian Leslie, an ordained minister who is a professor at the Yale University Divinity School, said she was concerned about the power relationship between teachers and students.
“There is a problem when a chaplain defends saying ‘Jesus will be with you, Jesus will save you’ with the response ‘That’s the way we do it here – we promote Jesus’.”
Patrick Mrotek, founder of the new Christian Alliance for Progress, told IPS in an email, “Separation of church and state has been a fundamental American value that both protects us from the government imposing a particular religion while also guaranteeing our freedom from that government in our place of worship. The Christian Right seeks to institutionalize and impose their beliefs on all Americans when our country’s political and religious traditions honor precisely the opposite values.”
The Alliance is a religious organization advocating moderation and the separation of church and state.
The furor exploded this summer when a chaplain at the academy, Capt. Melinda Morton, charged that the religious problem at the academy was "pervasive."
Captain Morton was given an unwanted transfer, but resigned from the Air Force saying she did not believe her superiors genuinely wanted her to stay on to help resolve the problem. Before she resigned, she lodged a formal complaint, which is currently being investigated by the Air Force Inspector General.
Among the incidents highlighted in the task force report were fliers that advertised a screening of "The Passion of the Christ" at every seat in the dining hall, more than 250 people at the academy signing an annual Christmas message in the base newspaper that said, "Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the world" and an atheist student who was forbidden to organize a club for "Freethinkers."
The commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen. Johnny A. Weida, came in for particular
scrutiny by the Air Force panel. He sent an academy wide e-mail message to announce the National Day of Prayer, instructed cadets that they were "accountable to their God" and invented a call-and-response chant with the cadets that went, "Jesus ... Rocks."
Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, told IPS, “We are often told that the reason we spend more than any other country on our armed forces is because our military exists to 'protect our freedoms.' If the allegations about the Air Force Academy are true, then the Air Force must immediately move to protect its own future officers' constitutional right to freedom of religion. These brave and talented young men and women, who have committed to risk their lives to defend their country, deserve the ability to practice their religion, or no religion at all, free from government pressure and coercion, and free from the government's supporting one religion over other religions.”
A retired Army major general is throwing fuel on the hot issue of religious discrimination at the U.S. Air Force Academy by writing to commanders there to urge their backing a Christian evangelical rally for military personnel sponsored by Rev. Billy Graham's ministry – and signing his letters “Your Partner in the Gospel”.
The academy, which has been dogged by allegations of harassment against non-Christian cadets, charged that Bob Dees has sent promotional literature to commanders at the Academy, saying the event “will spiritually refresh you and equip you to share your faith in Jesus Christ with your brothers and sisters in arms.”
In his letter, Dees, wrote, “We wholeheartedly recommend that you give (the event) the widest possible distribution within your command…This seminar is designed to provide assistance to chaplains and other military personnel who are followers of Jesus Christ to enable them more effectively serve their religious faith groups while serving their country…Your support in making this known to your chaplains for dissemination.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), an advocacy group that has played a leading role in exposing religious bias at the Academy, warned military officials not to promote a Christian evangelistic rally for military personnel sponsored by Billy Graham's ministry, now run by Rev. Graham’s son, Franklin Graham.
AU said it took action after learning that Dees, who is now executive director
of the Military Ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ International, had sent
e-mails to installation commanders nationwide, not only at the Air Force Academy, informing them of a Sept. 9-11 “Serving God and Country” seminar in Asheville, N.C.
Promotional material for the event says other speakers will include U.S. Army
General Robert Van Antwerp, who will speak about how “to lead and influence others with the character and life of Jesus Christ.”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, AU’s executive director, said, “The military must never favor one faith over others. The Graham Ministries' event is intended to teach Christian evangelism, and that's not something the military should be involved in.”
In a letter sent to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and base
commanders nationwide today, AU's Lynn pointed out that the Constitution forbids government to promote religion.
Lynn’s letter said that promoting this Christian event to members of the military “could convey an unconstitutional message of governmental endorsement
of religion, and to therefore urge you to ensure that military leaders do not encourage members of the military or their spouses to attend the event or
otherwise promote it in any way.”
Lynn’s letter says it would be “highly inappropriate for the military to
endorse a rally sponsored by Franklin Graham, a harsh and controversial
critic of Islam, at a time when the nation is fighting a war in a Muslim region
of the world.”
The 4000-cadet Air Force Academy, which trains future officers, is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a town that is also home to a number of the nation’s
most high-profile Christian evangelical organizations.
In response to recent accusation of religious discrimination at the Academy, a military task force led by Lt. Gen. Roger Brady reported that the Academy
failed to accommodate the diverse religious needs of cadets and staff.
“Religious slurs and disparaging remarks have no place at the Air Force Academy”, Gen. Brady said.
Retired Chaplain Jack C. Williamson told legislators that the current problems
at the academy were result of “years of practice that have gone unchallenged”,
adding that the problem “goes far beyond tolerance”.
Dr. Christian Leslie, an ordained minister who is a professor at the Yale University Divinity School, said she was concerned about the power relationship between teachers and students.
“There is a problem when a chaplain defends saying ‘Jesus will be with you, Jesus will save you’ with the response ‘That’s the way we do it here – we promote Jesus’.”
Patrick Mrotek, founder of the new Christian Alliance for Progress, told IPS in an email, “Separation of church and state has been a fundamental American value that both protects us from the government imposing a particular religion while also guaranteeing our freedom from that government in our place of worship. The Christian Right seeks to institutionalize and impose their beliefs on all Americans when our country’s political and religious traditions honor precisely the opposite values.”
The Alliance is a religious organization advocating moderation and the separation of church and state.
The furor exploded this summer when a chaplain at the academy, Capt. Melinda Morton, charged that the religious problem at the academy was "pervasive."
Captain Morton was given an unwanted transfer, but resigned from the Air Force saying she did not believe her superiors genuinely wanted her to stay on to help resolve the problem. Before she resigned, she lodged a formal complaint, which is currently being investigated by the Air Force Inspector General.
Among the incidents highlighted in the task force report were fliers that advertised a screening of "The Passion of the Christ" at every seat in the dining hall, more than 250 people at the academy signing an annual Christmas message in the base newspaper that said, "Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the world" and an atheist student who was forbidden to organize a club for "Freethinkers."
The commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen. Johnny A. Weida, came in for particular
scrutiny by the Air Force panel. He sent an academy wide e-mail message to announce the National Day of Prayer, instructed cadets that they were "accountable to their God" and invented a call-and-response chant with the cadets that went, "Jesus ... Rocks."
Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, told IPS, “We are often told that the reason we spend more than any other country on our armed forces is because our military exists to 'protect our freedoms.' If the allegations about the Air Force Academy are true, then the Air Force must immediately move to protect its own future officers' constitutional right to freedom of religion. These brave and talented young men and women, who have committed to risk their lives to defend their country, deserve the ability to practice their religion, or no religion at all, free from government pressure and coercion, and free from the government's supporting one religion over other religions.”
MORE ABU GHRAIB
By William Fisher
Civil libertarians and the Pentagon appear headed for yet another trainwreck in the ongoing dispute over the so-called ‘second batch’ of photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
In response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and a number of medical and veterans groups demanding release of 87 new videos and photographs depicting detainee abuse at the now infamous prison, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, said the release would result in "riots, violence and attacks by insurgents.”
In court papers filed to contest the lawsuit, Gen. Myers said he consulted with Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the United States Central Command, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of the American forces in Iraq. Both officers also opposed the release, General Myers said.
Gen. Myers said he believes “release of the photos would “incite public opinion in the Muslim world and put the lives of American soldiers and officials at risk”, according to documents unsealed in federal court in New York.
"The situation on the ground in Iraq is dynamic and dangerous," Myers added,
with 70 insurgent attacks daily. He also said there was evidence that the
Taliban was gaining ground because of popular discontent in Afghanistan.
General Myers cited the violence that erupted in some Muslim countries in May
after Newsweek published an item, which it later retracted, saying that a Koran had been thrown in a toilet in the United States detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He also said the images could fuel terrorist disinformation campaigns.
"It is probable that Al Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and
videos as grist for their propaganda mill, which will result in, besides violent
attacks, increased terrorist recruitment, continued financial support and
exacerbation of tensions between Iraqi and Afghani populaces and U.S. and
coalition forces," he said.
The 87 “new” photos and four videotapes taken at Abu Ghraib were among those turned over to Army investigators last year by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, a reservist who was posted at the prison.
In legal papers unsealed last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allied groups urged the court to order the release of photographs and videos, and also asked the court to reject the government's attempt to file some of its legal arguments in secret.
It said that until the first photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib were made public in April 2004, the government had consistently denied that any wrongdoing had taken place despite news reports to the contrary. Since then, the ACLU has obtained, through a court order, more than 60,000 pages of government documents regarding torture and abuse of detainees.
At a court hearing on Monday, the judge said he generally ruled in favor of public disclosure and ordered the government to reveal some redacted parts of its argument for blocking the release of pictures and videotapes.
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said his rulings pertained to arguments by Gen. Myers. "By and large, I ruled in favor of public disclosure," he said.
The judge said he believes photographs "are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred" at the prison.
He scheduled arguments on the question of whether the photographs and videos should be released for Aug. 30, saying a speedy decision is important so the public's right to know isn't compromised.
The ACLU has also called for an independent counsel with subpoena power to investigate the torture scandal, including the role of senior policymakers, and has filed a separate lawsuit to hold Secretary Rumsfeld and high-ranking military officers accountable.
Reed Brody, head of international programs for Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS, "The problem is not the photos but the policy of abuse. The release of the first photos last year led us to the revelations that senior U.S. officials had secretly sidelined the Geneva Conventions, re-defined ‘torture’, and approved illegal coercive interrogation methods. The release of new photos showing crimes perpetrated on detainees could create new impetus to expose and prosecute those ultimately responsible and hopefully prevent these practices
from being repeated."
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS,
“The administration's response to the release of the photos is to kill the messenger, rather then to investigate and prosecute the real culprits: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Generals Miller and Sanchez, and others.”
He agreed that “the photos will be upsetting to anyone who cares about humane treatment and particularly to those in the Muslim world, but the photos reflect the reality of the type of treatment detainees were subjected to. Rather than suppress the best evidence of widespread torture of Muslim detainees, the Administration ought to launch a fully independent investigation and ought to see that an independent prosecutor is appointed.”
He added, “Ensuring accountability for the torture conspiracy is the best way of demonstrating to the Muslim world that this outrage has come to an end and will not be repeated”.
The government initially objected to the release of the images on the grounds that it would violate the Geneva Conventions rights of the detainees depicted in the images. That concern was addressed by court order on June 1 directing the government to redact any personally identifying characteristics from the images. The ACLU did not object to those redactions.
The ACLU said the government has repeatedly taken the position that the detainees themselves cannot rely on the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings to challenge their mistreatment by American personnel.
In a court declaration, former U.S. Army Colonel Michael E. Pheneger, a retired military intelligence expert, responded to the government's "cause-and-effect" argument that release of the images would spark violence abroad.
“Our enemies seek to prevent the United States from achieving its objectives in the Middle East," he said. "They do not need specific provocations to justify their actions."
Attacks by insurgents “will continue regardless of whether the photos and tapes are released, " he added.
The case arose from a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.
Civil libertarians and the Pentagon appear headed for yet another trainwreck in the ongoing dispute over the so-called ‘second batch’ of photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
In response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and a number of medical and veterans groups demanding release of 87 new videos and photographs depicting detainee abuse at the now infamous prison, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, said the release would result in "riots, violence and attacks by insurgents.”
In court papers filed to contest the lawsuit, Gen. Myers said he consulted with Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the United States Central Command, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of the American forces in Iraq. Both officers also opposed the release, General Myers said.
Gen. Myers said he believes “release of the photos would “incite public opinion in the Muslim world and put the lives of American soldiers and officials at risk”, according to documents unsealed in federal court in New York.
"The situation on the ground in Iraq is dynamic and dangerous," Myers added,
with 70 insurgent attacks daily. He also said there was evidence that the
Taliban was gaining ground because of popular discontent in Afghanistan.
General Myers cited the violence that erupted in some Muslim countries in May
after Newsweek published an item, which it later retracted, saying that a Koran had been thrown in a toilet in the United States detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He also said the images could fuel terrorist disinformation campaigns.
"It is probable that Al Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and
videos as grist for their propaganda mill, which will result in, besides violent
attacks, increased terrorist recruitment, continued financial support and
exacerbation of tensions between Iraqi and Afghani populaces and U.S. and
coalition forces," he said.
The 87 “new” photos and four videotapes taken at Abu Ghraib were among those turned over to Army investigators last year by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, a reservist who was posted at the prison.
In legal papers unsealed last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allied groups urged the court to order the release of photographs and videos, and also asked the court to reject the government's attempt to file some of its legal arguments in secret.
It said that until the first photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib were made public in April 2004, the government had consistently denied that any wrongdoing had taken place despite news reports to the contrary. Since then, the ACLU has obtained, through a court order, more than 60,000 pages of government documents regarding torture and abuse of detainees.
At a court hearing on Monday, the judge said he generally ruled in favor of public disclosure and ordered the government to reveal some redacted parts of its argument for blocking the release of pictures and videotapes.
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said his rulings pertained to arguments by Gen. Myers. "By and large, I ruled in favor of public disclosure," he said.
The judge said he believes photographs "are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred" at the prison.
He scheduled arguments on the question of whether the photographs and videos should be released for Aug. 30, saying a speedy decision is important so the public's right to know isn't compromised.
The ACLU has also called for an independent counsel with subpoena power to investigate the torture scandal, including the role of senior policymakers, and has filed a separate lawsuit to hold Secretary Rumsfeld and high-ranking military officers accountable.
Reed Brody, head of international programs for Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS, "The problem is not the photos but the policy of abuse. The release of the first photos last year led us to the revelations that senior U.S. officials had secretly sidelined the Geneva Conventions, re-defined ‘torture’, and approved illegal coercive interrogation methods. The release of new photos showing crimes perpetrated on detainees could create new impetus to expose and prosecute those ultimately responsible and hopefully prevent these practices
from being repeated."
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS,
“The administration's response to the release of the photos is to kill the messenger, rather then to investigate and prosecute the real culprits: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Generals Miller and Sanchez, and others.”
He agreed that “the photos will be upsetting to anyone who cares about humane treatment and particularly to those in the Muslim world, but the photos reflect the reality of the type of treatment detainees were subjected to. Rather than suppress the best evidence of widespread torture of Muslim detainees, the Administration ought to launch a fully independent investigation and ought to see that an independent prosecutor is appointed.”
He added, “Ensuring accountability for the torture conspiracy is the best way of demonstrating to the Muslim world that this outrage has come to an end and will not be repeated”.
The government initially objected to the release of the images on the grounds that it would violate the Geneva Conventions rights of the detainees depicted in the images. That concern was addressed by court order on June 1 directing the government to redact any personally identifying characteristics from the images. The ACLU did not object to those redactions.
The ACLU said the government has repeatedly taken the position that the detainees themselves cannot rely on the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings to challenge their mistreatment by American personnel.
In a court declaration, former U.S. Army Colonel Michael E. Pheneger, a retired military intelligence expert, responded to the government's "cause-and-effect" argument that release of the images would spark violence abroad.
“Our enemies seek to prevent the United States from achieving its objectives in the Middle East," he said. "They do not need specific provocations to justify their actions."
Attacks by insurgents “will continue regardless of whether the photos and tapes are released, " he added.
The case arose from a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Let's Not Spite Our Face With Profiling
By Hussein Ibish
Hussein Ibish is the vice chair of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America. This commentary appeared in The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
If anyone ever wondered what demons lurking in American culture might have possessed the singer Michael Jackson to bleach his skin and destroy his once-noble African features through a series of bizarre plastic surgeries - to literally cut off his nose to spite his face - all they need to do is cast their attention on the debate that has ensued in recent weeks in the United States about "racial profiling."
Racial profiling is a long-discredited American law-enforcement technique whereby police identify individuals as suspects based on their apparent race, ethnicity, age, and other simple identity criteria. This was a central feature of abuse against African-American and Latino populations throughout the country, but is now illegal and has few defenders. Except where Arabs and Muslims are concerned.
Following the attacks on the London mass transport system, the New York City subway instituted random searches of passengers, as a reassurance to the public and a deterrent to terrorists. Many American commentators have condemned this policy, as well as the U.S. government's entire counterterrorism strategy, for not engaging in racial profiling against Arab and Muslim Americans.
Many Americans are used to thinking in simplistic terms about race and ethnicity, of living in a world divided between black and white in which identity is obvious from pigmentation and can be discerned at a glance. Proponents of profiling have proven amazingly resistant to understanding that identifying Arab and Muslim Americans based on appearance is simply impossible.
Leaving aside the fact that over half of the Arabs in the United States are Christians, Arabs can resemble almost any group of southern Europeans, Latin Americans, Central and South Asians, or Africans.
Even more preposterous would be any attempt to identify Muslims by appearance, since Muslims come from almost every part of the world, and constitute a fifth of humanity. And, since about a third of American Muslims are African-Americans, any futile attempt at profiling of Muslims, especially in urban areas such as New York City, would immediately degenerate into yet another way of profiling black people.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wants racial profiling but would "immediately exempt Hispanics, Scandinavians and East Asians," as if Hispanics were readily distinguishable from Arabs and South Asians. And, as his Washington Post colleague Colby King pointed out, "by eliminating Scandinavians from his list of obvious terror suspects, Krauthammer would have authorities give a pass to all white people."
Supporters of racial profiling cling to the idea that you can tell who is an Arab, and even a Muslim, just by looking at them. I was on a CNN debate recently with a profiling supporter who, when confronted with the facts, resorted to holding up the photos of the 19 hijackers of September 11, 2001, and insisting: "They all look alike."
The tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in the London subway could have been based in part on his dress and behavior, as British authorities maintain. But almost certainly Menezes would not been shot eight times in the head had he not been a young, brown-skinned man. British police looked at a Brazilian electrician and saw a Pakistani suicide-bomber.
Not that all the London bombers were of Pakistani origin - a fourth man was Jamaican. The failed bombers in the second group were all East Africans. And then you have Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, to mention but a few. But it's okay, "they all look alike."
Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind has also demanded that New York police use ethnic profiling in the subway searches, maintaining that "the London suicide bombers on July 7 and July 21 fit a very precise intelligence profile." He also found that "[T]hey all look a certain way." The police replied "racial profiling is illegal, of doubtful effectiveness, and against department policy."
Demagogues who call for profiling against American Muslims need to drop the pretence that this could be based on appearances or names. It would require Americans to carry identity documents confirming their official religious designation. And even if it were possible to profile Arabs or Muslims by sight, or Muslims were forced to carry religious identification to be produced on demand, the effect would still be to cast an impossibly wide pool of suspects and distract attention from behavioral and other contingent factors that may actually point to a potential threat.
Race, ethnicity and religious affiliation, even when accurately identified, are widely recognized by law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials as false leads, which in themselves say nothing relevant about whether or not an individual may be about to commit a crime.
Only two approaches in dealing with mass groups of people make sense: comprehensiveness, as at airports; or randomness, as in subways - anything in between serves less as a deterrent to terrorists and more as a tipping of the authorities' hand and a helpful hint for how not to get caught.
When U.S. airport security was based on a supposedly neutral, secret computer profiling system, dating from 1996 and leading up to September 11, 2001, the evidence strongly suggested that it resulted in widespread discrimination against Arab and Muslim travelers. However, it did not prevent the September 11 attacks.
The intensified post-September 11 airport security regime has been both more thorough and more equitable, despite the ongoing bureaucratic nightmare of "no-fly" lists. There was more evidence of intentional discrimination against Arabs and Muslims in domestic air travel before September 11 than after, precisely because the U.S. government has had to accept that serious security threats require policies that do not boil down to crude stereotypes or rely on subjective judgments about ethnicity.
Toward the end of his tenure as the first secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, explained to Americans: "There was a legitimate concern right after 9/11 that the face of international terrorism was basically from the Middle East. We know differently. We don't have the luxury of kidding ourselves that there is an ethnic or racial or country profile."
Most Americans understand that fighting terrorism with racism is repugnant to their values and won't work. And most people have enough sense not to cut off their nose to spite their face. But not everyone.
Hussein Ibish is the vice chair of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America. This commentary appeared in The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
If anyone ever wondered what demons lurking in American culture might have possessed the singer Michael Jackson to bleach his skin and destroy his once-noble African features through a series of bizarre plastic surgeries - to literally cut off his nose to spite his face - all they need to do is cast their attention on the debate that has ensued in recent weeks in the United States about "racial profiling."
Racial profiling is a long-discredited American law-enforcement technique whereby police identify individuals as suspects based on their apparent race, ethnicity, age, and other simple identity criteria. This was a central feature of abuse against African-American and Latino populations throughout the country, but is now illegal and has few defenders. Except where Arabs and Muslims are concerned.
Following the attacks on the London mass transport system, the New York City subway instituted random searches of passengers, as a reassurance to the public and a deterrent to terrorists. Many American commentators have condemned this policy, as well as the U.S. government's entire counterterrorism strategy, for not engaging in racial profiling against Arab and Muslim Americans.
Many Americans are used to thinking in simplistic terms about race and ethnicity, of living in a world divided between black and white in which identity is obvious from pigmentation and can be discerned at a glance. Proponents of profiling have proven amazingly resistant to understanding that identifying Arab and Muslim Americans based on appearance is simply impossible.
Leaving aside the fact that over half of the Arabs in the United States are Christians, Arabs can resemble almost any group of southern Europeans, Latin Americans, Central and South Asians, or Africans.
Even more preposterous would be any attempt to identify Muslims by appearance, since Muslims come from almost every part of the world, and constitute a fifth of humanity. And, since about a third of American Muslims are African-Americans, any futile attempt at profiling of Muslims, especially in urban areas such as New York City, would immediately degenerate into yet another way of profiling black people.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wants racial profiling but would "immediately exempt Hispanics, Scandinavians and East Asians," as if Hispanics were readily distinguishable from Arabs and South Asians. And, as his Washington Post colleague Colby King pointed out, "by eliminating Scandinavians from his list of obvious terror suspects, Krauthammer would have authorities give a pass to all white people."
Supporters of racial profiling cling to the idea that you can tell who is an Arab, and even a Muslim, just by looking at them. I was on a CNN debate recently with a profiling supporter who, when confronted with the facts, resorted to holding up the photos of the 19 hijackers of September 11, 2001, and insisting: "They all look alike."
The tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in the London subway could have been based in part on his dress and behavior, as British authorities maintain. But almost certainly Menezes would not been shot eight times in the head had he not been a young, brown-skinned man. British police looked at a Brazilian electrician and saw a Pakistani suicide-bomber.
Not that all the London bombers were of Pakistani origin - a fourth man was Jamaican. The failed bombers in the second group were all East Africans. And then you have Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, to mention but a few. But it's okay, "they all look alike."
Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind has also demanded that New York police use ethnic profiling in the subway searches, maintaining that "the London suicide bombers on July 7 and July 21 fit a very precise intelligence profile." He also found that "[T]hey all look a certain way." The police replied "racial profiling is illegal, of doubtful effectiveness, and against department policy."
Demagogues who call for profiling against American Muslims need to drop the pretence that this could be based on appearances or names. It would require Americans to carry identity documents confirming their official religious designation. And even if it were possible to profile Arabs or Muslims by sight, or Muslims were forced to carry religious identification to be produced on demand, the effect would still be to cast an impossibly wide pool of suspects and distract attention from behavioral and other contingent factors that may actually point to a potential threat.
Race, ethnicity and religious affiliation, even when accurately identified, are widely recognized by law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials as false leads, which in themselves say nothing relevant about whether or not an individual may be about to commit a crime.
Only two approaches in dealing with mass groups of people make sense: comprehensiveness, as at airports; or randomness, as in subways - anything in between serves less as a deterrent to terrorists and more as a tipping of the authorities' hand and a helpful hint for how not to get caught.
When U.S. airport security was based on a supposedly neutral, secret computer profiling system, dating from 1996 and leading up to September 11, 2001, the evidence strongly suggested that it resulted in widespread discrimination against Arab and Muslim travelers. However, it did not prevent the September 11 attacks.
The intensified post-September 11 airport security regime has been both more thorough and more equitable, despite the ongoing bureaucratic nightmare of "no-fly" lists. There was more evidence of intentional discrimination against Arabs and Muslims in domestic air travel before September 11 than after, precisely because the U.S. government has had to accept that serious security threats require policies that do not boil down to crude stereotypes or rely on subjective judgments about ethnicity.
Toward the end of his tenure as the first secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, explained to Americans: "There was a legitimate concern right after 9/11 that the face of international terrorism was basically from the Middle East. We know differently. We don't have the luxury of kidding ourselves that there is an ethnic or racial or country profile."
Most Americans understand that fighting terrorism with racism is repugnant to their values and won't work. And most people have enough sense not to cut off their nose to spite their face. But not everyone.
STATE SECRETS?
By William Fisher
As whistleblower Sibel Edmonds asked the Supreme Court to review her dismissed case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), mainstream media continues to refer to the government’s defense – the so-called State Secrets Privilege – as “rarely used”. In fact it has been used over sixty times since its creation in the 1950s.
The State Secrets Privilege is a series of American legal precedents allowing
the federal government the ability to dismiss legal cases that it claims would
threaten foreign policy, military intelligence or national security.
A relic of the Cold War, it has been invoked several times since the Sept 11th 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Judges have denied the privilege on only five occasions.
It was used against Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator, who was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Lower courts dismissed the case when former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the state secrets privilege.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Edmonds case, says there is an “acute” need for clarification of the state secrets doctrine “because the government is increasingly using the privilege to cover up its own wrongdoing and to keep legitimate cases out of court.”
The first case in which the state secrets privilege was invoked came in 1953. Widows of airmen killed in the crash of a military aircraft sued the government for details. The government claimed that disclosing a military flight accident report would jeopardize secret military equipment and harm national security.
It was not until nearly 50 years later, in 2004, that it was revealed that the accident report contained no state secrets, but instead confirmed that the cause of the crash was faulty maintenance of the B-29 fleet.
The state secrets privilege was used again in 2002 in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese American computer scientist who had been charged with stealing nuclear secrets for China from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
President George W. Bush said national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee. Though it resulted in the case being dismissed, another suit was launched directly attacking then-FBI Director Louis Freeh for interfering and falsely invoking the State Secrets Privilege.
Reluctant to go to trial, the government worked out a plea bargain with Lee, who had been imprisoned for 278 days in solitary confinement. Lee pled guilty to improper handling of classified data and cleared of all charges relating to espionage. Lee was arrested in December 1999 and freed in August 2000.
Judge James A. Parker offered an apology to Lee for what he called "abuse of power" by the federal government.
The government invoked the privilege again in the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who sought to sue then Attorney General John Ashcroft for his role in rendering Arar to Syria to face torture and extract false confessions.
Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey said in legal papers filed at the time that “Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified information."
Arar, who was born in Syria, was detained at New York John F. Kennedy Airport in 2002, on his way back to Canada from North Africa. He was held incommunicado by U.S. immigration authorities, and eventually “rendered” to Syria, where he was imprisoned for close to a year and claims he was tortured. He was released without charges.
The Arar case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and is also being investigated by an independent Canadian commission, with which the U.S. has refused to cooperate.
Barbara Olshansky, the assistant legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing Arar, said that government lawyers “are saying this case can’t be tried, and the classified information on which they’re basing this argument can’t even be shared with the opposing lawyers. It’s the height of arrogance—they think they can do anything they want in the name of the global war on terrorism.”
Again, in August 2005, a Federal Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) based on the Government’s invocation of the state secrets privilege.
Jeffrey Sterling, an Operations Officer with the CIA in its Near East and South Asia Division from 1993-2001, claimed he was told he was “too big and black” to receive certain CIA assignments, and that CIA management placed expectations on him “far above those required of non-African-American Operations Officers.” He also contended he was retaliated against for using the CIA’s internal equal employment opportunity process.
However, the court noted, “There is no way for Sterling to prove employment discrimination without exposing at least some classified details of the covert employment that gives context to his claim.”
The privilege was first invoked against Sibel Edmonds to prevent her from testifying that the Federal Government knew that Al-Qaeda intended to use airliners to attack the United States in 2001. The case was a $100 trillion action filed in 2002 by six hundred victim's families against officials of the Saudi government and prominent Saudi citizens.
Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 and filed a lawsuit later that year challenging the retaliatory dismissal. An unclassified public report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General contains much of the information the DOJ now seeks to block. The report concluded that Edmonds' whistleblower allegations were "the most significant factor" in the FBI's decision to terminate her.
Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy for the American Federation of Scientists, says, “Once rarely invoked, the state secrets privilege is now increasingly used by the government as a "get out of jail free" card to block unwanted litigation. The idea that courts cannot handle national security cases involving classified information is simply false. Classified information often figures in criminal espionage cases, and even occasionally in Freedom of Information Act cases. There are procedures for in camera review, protective orders, non-disclosure agreements, and so on.”
He adds, “In the same way, sensitive classified information could be protected in the current cases where the state secrets privilege has been invoked -- without shutting down the entire proceeding. As a society we should be seeking to expand the rule of law, not to carve out more areas where the government is immune to judicial review.”
As whistleblower Sibel Edmonds asked the Supreme Court to review her dismissed case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), mainstream media continues to refer to the government’s defense – the so-called State Secrets Privilege – as “rarely used”. In fact it has been used over sixty times since its creation in the 1950s.
The State Secrets Privilege is a series of American legal precedents allowing
the federal government the ability to dismiss legal cases that it claims would
threaten foreign policy, military intelligence or national security.
A relic of the Cold War, it has been invoked several times since the Sept 11th 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Judges have denied the privilege on only five occasions.
It was used against Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator, who was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Lower courts dismissed the case when former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the state secrets privilege.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Edmonds case, says there is an “acute” need for clarification of the state secrets doctrine “because the government is increasingly using the privilege to cover up its own wrongdoing and to keep legitimate cases out of court.”
The first case in which the state secrets privilege was invoked came in 1953. Widows of airmen killed in the crash of a military aircraft sued the government for details. The government claimed that disclosing a military flight accident report would jeopardize secret military equipment and harm national security.
It was not until nearly 50 years later, in 2004, that it was revealed that the accident report contained no state secrets, but instead confirmed that the cause of the crash was faulty maintenance of the B-29 fleet.
The state secrets privilege was used again in 2002 in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese American computer scientist who had been charged with stealing nuclear secrets for China from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
President George W. Bush said national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee. Though it resulted in the case being dismissed, another suit was launched directly attacking then-FBI Director Louis Freeh for interfering and falsely invoking the State Secrets Privilege.
Reluctant to go to trial, the government worked out a plea bargain with Lee, who had been imprisoned for 278 days in solitary confinement. Lee pled guilty to improper handling of classified data and cleared of all charges relating to espionage. Lee was arrested in December 1999 and freed in August 2000.
Judge James A. Parker offered an apology to Lee for what he called "abuse of power" by the federal government.
The government invoked the privilege again in the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who sought to sue then Attorney General John Ashcroft for his role in rendering Arar to Syria to face torture and extract false confessions.
Former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey said in legal papers filed at the time that “Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified information."
Arar, who was born in Syria, was detained at New York John F. Kennedy Airport in 2002, on his way back to Canada from North Africa. He was held incommunicado by U.S. immigration authorities, and eventually “rendered” to Syria, where he was imprisoned for close to a year and claims he was tortured. He was released without charges.
The Arar case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and is also being investigated by an independent Canadian commission, with which the U.S. has refused to cooperate.
Barbara Olshansky, the assistant legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing Arar, said that government lawyers “are saying this case can’t be tried, and the classified information on which they’re basing this argument can’t even be shared with the opposing lawyers. It’s the height of arrogance—they think they can do anything they want in the name of the global war on terrorism.”
Again, in August 2005, a Federal Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) based on the Government’s invocation of the state secrets privilege.
Jeffrey Sterling, an Operations Officer with the CIA in its Near East and South Asia Division from 1993-2001, claimed he was told he was “too big and black” to receive certain CIA assignments, and that CIA management placed expectations on him “far above those required of non-African-American Operations Officers.” He also contended he was retaliated against for using the CIA’s internal equal employment opportunity process.
However, the court noted, “There is no way for Sterling to prove employment discrimination without exposing at least some classified details of the covert employment that gives context to his claim.”
The privilege was first invoked against Sibel Edmonds to prevent her from testifying that the Federal Government knew that Al-Qaeda intended to use airliners to attack the United States in 2001. The case was a $100 trillion action filed in 2002 by six hundred victim's families against officials of the Saudi government and prominent Saudi citizens.
Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 and filed a lawsuit later that year challenging the retaliatory dismissal. An unclassified public report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General contains much of the information the DOJ now seeks to block. The report concluded that Edmonds' whistleblower allegations were "the most significant factor" in the FBI's decision to terminate her.
Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy for the American Federation of Scientists, says, “Once rarely invoked, the state secrets privilege is now increasingly used by the government as a "get out of jail free" card to block unwanted litigation. The idea that courts cannot handle national security cases involving classified information is simply false. Classified information often figures in criminal espionage cases, and even occasionally in Freedom of Information Act cases. There are procedures for in camera review, protective orders, non-disclosure agreements, and so on.”
He adds, “In the same way, sensitive classified information could be protected in the current cases where the state secrets privilege has been invoked -- without shutting down the entire proceeding. As a society we should be seeking to expand the rule of law, not to carve out more areas where the government is immune to judicial review.”
Saturday, August 13, 2005
LBJ’S DIVIDEND
By William Fisher
If you spend your life as a writer, you’re always concerned about who’s reading and whether they’re hearing what you thought you were saying.
I wrote a piece last week about Lyndon Johnson and the magisterial speech he made to Congress 40 years ago urging quick passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I used the speech to illustrate the ‘good’ LBJ. I used his disastrous Vietnam misadventure to show the flipside of his nature. And I drew a parallel between LBJ’s complexity and the position in which George W. Bush finds himself as he considers his legacy.
I concluded that “Quagmire, not Selma, is the word that has come to be associated with LBJ’s presidency”, and suggested that, if President Bush wants to leave us a history we can all be proud of, he needs to learn the lesson LBJ learned at such great cost to himself.
This little essay drew a ton of email. A few of the more temperate comments are below. You can decide if the readers were hearing what I thought I was saying.
Kevin H. wrote: “At first, when I read your article at Common Screams, uh, I mean, Common Dreams, I thought it was a great recounting of one of LBJ's best speeches. But at the end, I realized the first 90% was just a setup to use the last 10% to take a jab at George Bush. Actually, it was a horrible, or perhaps I should say, non-existent, segue. But, hey! who cares?, what can one expect from the usual crowd of sad-sack lefties that infest so much of the Web?”
Tim Anderson wrote, “LBJ's civil rights legislation is significant. However, that contribution to our society is no reason to soften a critique of his role in the destruction of Vietnam. To describe his participation in that atrocity as one of 'hubris', or of receiving 'bad advice' covers up his deliberate destruction of the people and environment of that country, and the lies he knowingly and repeatedly told the American public to continue his murderous policy. There is a notable continuity in US foreign policy over the last 50 years (Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc) regardless of particular individuals or parties in power.”
Some responses were short and to the point. One said, “Johnson rode Kennedy's coat-tails and took the credit for the work he implemented.”
Another said, “LBJ had two sides. Good and evil. You need to learn more about the latter side. Research some of the JFK assassination books.”
And yet another. “When was the only time we were attacked as a nation that resulted in no congressional hearings? Try the USS Liberty. Check out who covered it up. LBJ was a politician with agendas. He's as worthy as our current president. I'm sure you're quite versed in US history but you dropped the ball on this article. Come-on man...”
I found all these missives instructive and compelling. But the one that really moved me came from a reader identifying himself as the “Grandson of Jesus Inclan of Cotulla, Texas” (where LBJ taught school in 1928). It's a long message, but worth contemplating.
“Congratulations on well written article”, he began. “As a descendent and relative of the students LBJ taught in Cotulla, many things have changed and many still have not. LBJ would have been a fool not to have seen the great injustice done to Mexicanos in South Texas. Growing up there, segregation still exists and you find this region of the country still one of the poorest.
“What has happened is that through the injustice lived and (was) witnessed by countless veterans of many wars and the history of hatred and violent suppression in this part of the country, people have mobilized to be destroyed by projects such at COINTELPRO that suppressed with the support of the U.S. Govt. the promotion of true democracy.
“Many liberal and conservatives destroyed the Civil Rights and subsequent Chicano and Black movements with the support of LBJ. That is part of LBJ's legacy and why he is rightly labeled for his Vietnam folly.
“It is foolish to think that our current so-called head of state will listen or even cares. The change you wish for will not come from our society at large. The change if it is not crushed as it was in the past will come from the working poor and immigrants. Especially Mexicano immigrants who come to this country with a history of strife and revolution.
“If you follow Social Movements in Latin America this will soon follow in the next 50 years here in the U.S. A wealthy man like LBJ had the privilege and opportunity to be given what was basically dropped into his lap at the cost of thousands of lynchings and murders.
“True change will only come from those who understand what challenge is and not from the privilege class who wait for such opportunities to land on them. Sacrifice by people of color in war, in daily life, is what makes this possible. The privileged of this country only wait to learn different ways of taking advantage of the sacrifice of others. I view most in this country in power, privilege, with opportunity as such opportunists. Never really able or willing to make the kind of sacrifice and commitment necessary to truly follow through and the rhetoric.
“I challenge you as I challenge others to make the kind of sacrifice necessary for this as my family has for the past 200 years in South Texas.”
That email made writing the LBJ piece well worth all the effort to get every word just right. Here was an experience and a point of view I couldn’t possibly know about or appreciate from where I’m sitting.
As a consequence, I have begun to exchange emails with this Grandson of Jesus Inclan of Cotulla, Texas, for whom I have many questions and from whom I will doubtless learn much.
For a writer, being challenged is a huge dividend.
If you spend your life as a writer, you’re always concerned about who’s reading and whether they’re hearing what you thought you were saying.
I wrote a piece last week about Lyndon Johnson and the magisterial speech he made to Congress 40 years ago urging quick passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I used the speech to illustrate the ‘good’ LBJ. I used his disastrous Vietnam misadventure to show the flipside of his nature. And I drew a parallel between LBJ’s complexity and the position in which George W. Bush finds himself as he considers his legacy.
I concluded that “Quagmire, not Selma, is the word that has come to be associated with LBJ’s presidency”, and suggested that, if President Bush wants to leave us a history we can all be proud of, he needs to learn the lesson LBJ learned at such great cost to himself.
This little essay drew a ton of email. A few of the more temperate comments are below. You can decide if the readers were hearing what I thought I was saying.
Kevin H. wrote: “At first, when I read your article at Common Screams, uh, I mean, Common Dreams, I thought it was a great recounting of one of LBJ's best speeches. But at the end, I realized the first 90% was just a setup to use the last 10% to take a jab at George Bush. Actually, it was a horrible, or perhaps I should say, non-existent, segue. But, hey! who cares?, what can one expect from the usual crowd of sad-sack lefties that infest so much of the Web?”
Tim Anderson wrote, “LBJ's civil rights legislation is significant. However, that contribution to our society is no reason to soften a critique of his role in the destruction of Vietnam. To describe his participation in that atrocity as one of 'hubris', or of receiving 'bad advice' covers up his deliberate destruction of the people and environment of that country, and the lies he knowingly and repeatedly told the American public to continue his murderous policy. There is a notable continuity in US foreign policy over the last 50 years (Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc) regardless of particular individuals or parties in power.”
Some responses were short and to the point. One said, “Johnson rode Kennedy's coat-tails and took the credit for the work he implemented.”
Another said, “LBJ had two sides. Good and evil. You need to learn more about the latter side. Research some of the JFK assassination books.”
And yet another. “When was the only time we were attacked as a nation that resulted in no congressional hearings? Try the USS Liberty. Check out who covered it up. LBJ was a politician with agendas. He's as worthy as our current president. I'm sure you're quite versed in US history but you dropped the ball on this article. Come-on man...”
I found all these missives instructive and compelling. But the one that really moved me came from a reader identifying himself as the “Grandson of Jesus Inclan of Cotulla, Texas” (where LBJ taught school in 1928). It's a long message, but worth contemplating.
“Congratulations on well written article”, he began. “As a descendent and relative of the students LBJ taught in Cotulla, many things have changed and many still have not. LBJ would have been a fool not to have seen the great injustice done to Mexicanos in South Texas. Growing up there, segregation still exists and you find this region of the country still one of the poorest.
“What has happened is that through the injustice lived and (was) witnessed by countless veterans of many wars and the history of hatred and violent suppression in this part of the country, people have mobilized to be destroyed by projects such at COINTELPRO that suppressed with the support of the U.S. Govt. the promotion of true democracy.
“Many liberal and conservatives destroyed the Civil Rights and subsequent Chicano and Black movements with the support of LBJ. That is part of LBJ's legacy and why he is rightly labeled for his Vietnam folly.
“It is foolish to think that our current so-called head of state will listen or even cares. The change you wish for will not come from our society at large. The change if it is not crushed as it was in the past will come from the working poor and immigrants. Especially Mexicano immigrants who come to this country with a history of strife and revolution.
“If you follow Social Movements in Latin America this will soon follow in the next 50 years here in the U.S. A wealthy man like LBJ had the privilege and opportunity to be given what was basically dropped into his lap at the cost of thousands of lynchings and murders.
“True change will only come from those who understand what challenge is and not from the privilege class who wait for such opportunities to land on them. Sacrifice by people of color in war, in daily life, is what makes this possible. The privileged of this country only wait to learn different ways of taking advantage of the sacrifice of others. I view most in this country in power, privilege, with opportunity as such opportunists. Never really able or willing to make the kind of sacrifice and commitment necessary to truly follow through and the rhetoric.
“I challenge you as I challenge others to make the kind of sacrifice necessary for this as my family has for the past 200 years in South Texas.”
That email made writing the LBJ piece well worth all the effort to get every word just right. Here was an experience and a point of view I couldn’t possibly know about or appreciate from where I’m sitting.
As a consequence, I have begun to exchange emails with this Grandson of Jesus Inclan of Cotulla, Texas, for whom I have many questions and from whom I will doubtless learn much.
For a writer, being challenged is a huge dividend.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
LOOKING BACK AT LBJ
By William Fisher
In our country, we seem to revere only a few presidential speeches – Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s First Inaugural, John F. Kennedy’s “Ask Not”, and a few others.
But I have to confess that, while I have written thousands of words about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it has been many years since I actually listened to the words President Lyndon B. Johnson used to introduce this legislation.
I did that yesterday. Thanks to television’s last outpost of civility, C-SPAN, I watched transfixed as LBJ addressed a joint session of Congress.
Behind him was Vice President Hubert Humphrey seated next to House Speaker John McCormack. Before him were all the members of the Congress he loved so much, all the members of the Diplomatic Corps and the Supreme Court, and the whole Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, the man who would ultimately share with the president the ignominious legacy of Vietnam.
“I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy,” he began.
He went on: “I urge every member of both parties, Americans of all religions and of all colors, from every section of this country, to join me in that cause.
“At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.
“There, long-suffering men and women peacefully protested the denial of their rights as Americans. Many were brutally assaulted. One good man, a man of God, was killed.
“There is no cause for pride in what has happened in Selma. There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our democracy in what is happening here tonight, ” he said, bringing most of the audience, Republicans and Democrats, to their feet – with the exception of Southern Democrats, who sat on their hands.
LBJ, more than almost anyone alive on that day, knew the political price he might have to pay. Because he knew the Congress better than anyone else.
Perhaps in purely rhetorical terms, LBJ’s speech wasn’t up to Lincoln, FDR or JFK. But in so many ways it was at least as consequential as any words ever uttered by an American president.
With the confidence of one speaking to friends, LBJ intoned:
“This bill will strike down restrictions to voting in all elections -- Federal, State, and local -- which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.
“This bill will establish a simple, uniform standard which cannot be used, however ingenious the effort, to flout our Constitution.
“It will provide for citizens to be registered by officials of the United States Government if the State officials refuse to register them.
“It will eliminate tedious, unnecessary lawsuits which delay the right to vote. Finally, this legislation will ensure that properly registered individuals are not prohibited from voting.”
Later, aware of the power he held, he said: “All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship regardless of race. And they are going to have those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.
“But I would like to caution you and remind you,” he went on, “that to exercise these privileges takes much more than just legal right. It requires a trained mind and a healthy body. It requires a decent home, and the chance to find a job, and the opportunity to escape from the clutches of poverty.
“Of course, people cannot contribute to the nation if they are never taught to read or write, if their bodies are stunted from hunger, if their sickness goes untended, if their life is spent in hopeless poverty just drawing a welfare check.
“So we want to open the gates to opportunity. But we are also going to give all our people, black and white, the help that they need to walk through those gates.
Looking back on his early days as a teacher in a Texas schoolroom full of Mexican-Americans who could not understand why people didn’t like them, LBJ said, “I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and to help people like them all over this country”.
Then he threw down the gauntlet: “But now I do have that chance -- and I'll let you in on a secret -- I mean to use it.”
In my personal pantheon of Presidential achievements, LBJ’s words on that day rank among the most portentous ever spoken.
Just think of what was accomplished in the days and weeks immediately following passage of this historic legislation forty years ago. And how it changed our country forever – for the better.
All of which only magnifies the excruciating sadness of LBJ’s downfall – and, for most Americans, his legacy. Quagmire, not Selma, is the word that has come to be associated with LBJ’s presidency.
I can think of no starker example of the price we mortals pay for hubris, for taking bad advice, for listening to people who peddle misinformation, for insisting on “staying the course” undeterred by inconvenient facts.
That’s a lesson our current President has yet to learn.
Like all second-term presidents, George W. Bush would like to leave a legacy that makes Americans proud. But what will it be based on? Iraq? The “war on terror”? Social Security? The “spread freedom” rhetoric of his second inaugural?
I hardly think so.
Our president needs to take an hour out of his vacation and listen to Lyndon Johnson.
In our country, we seem to revere only a few presidential speeches – Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s First Inaugural, John F. Kennedy’s “Ask Not”, and a few others.
But I have to confess that, while I have written thousands of words about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it has been many years since I actually listened to the words President Lyndon B. Johnson used to introduce this legislation.
I did that yesterday. Thanks to television’s last outpost of civility, C-SPAN, I watched transfixed as LBJ addressed a joint session of Congress.
Behind him was Vice President Hubert Humphrey seated next to House Speaker John McCormack. Before him were all the members of the Congress he loved so much, all the members of the Diplomatic Corps and the Supreme Court, and the whole Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, the man who would ultimately share with the president the ignominious legacy of Vietnam.
“I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy,” he began.
He went on: “I urge every member of both parties, Americans of all religions and of all colors, from every section of this country, to join me in that cause.
“At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.
“There, long-suffering men and women peacefully protested the denial of their rights as Americans. Many were brutally assaulted. One good man, a man of God, was killed.
“There is no cause for pride in what has happened in Selma. There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our democracy in what is happening here tonight, ” he said, bringing most of the audience, Republicans and Democrats, to their feet – with the exception of Southern Democrats, who sat on their hands.
LBJ, more than almost anyone alive on that day, knew the political price he might have to pay. Because he knew the Congress better than anyone else.
Perhaps in purely rhetorical terms, LBJ’s speech wasn’t up to Lincoln, FDR or JFK. But in so many ways it was at least as consequential as any words ever uttered by an American president.
With the confidence of one speaking to friends, LBJ intoned:
“This bill will strike down restrictions to voting in all elections -- Federal, State, and local -- which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.
“This bill will establish a simple, uniform standard which cannot be used, however ingenious the effort, to flout our Constitution.
“It will provide for citizens to be registered by officials of the United States Government if the State officials refuse to register them.
“It will eliminate tedious, unnecessary lawsuits which delay the right to vote. Finally, this legislation will ensure that properly registered individuals are not prohibited from voting.”
Later, aware of the power he held, he said: “All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship regardless of race. And they are going to have those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.
“But I would like to caution you and remind you,” he went on, “that to exercise these privileges takes much more than just legal right. It requires a trained mind and a healthy body. It requires a decent home, and the chance to find a job, and the opportunity to escape from the clutches of poverty.
“Of course, people cannot contribute to the nation if they are never taught to read or write, if their bodies are stunted from hunger, if their sickness goes untended, if their life is spent in hopeless poverty just drawing a welfare check.
“So we want to open the gates to opportunity. But we are also going to give all our people, black and white, the help that they need to walk through those gates.
Looking back on his early days as a teacher in a Texas schoolroom full of Mexican-Americans who could not understand why people didn’t like them, LBJ said, “I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and to help people like them all over this country”.
Then he threw down the gauntlet: “But now I do have that chance -- and I'll let you in on a secret -- I mean to use it.”
In my personal pantheon of Presidential achievements, LBJ’s words on that day rank among the most portentous ever spoken.
Just think of what was accomplished in the days and weeks immediately following passage of this historic legislation forty years ago. And how it changed our country forever – for the better.
All of which only magnifies the excruciating sadness of LBJ’s downfall – and, for most Americans, his legacy. Quagmire, not Selma, is the word that has come to be associated with LBJ’s presidency.
I can think of no starker example of the price we mortals pay for hubris, for taking bad advice, for listening to people who peddle misinformation, for insisting on “staying the course” undeterred by inconvenient facts.
That’s a lesson our current President has yet to learn.
Like all second-term presidents, George W. Bush would like to leave a legacy that makes Americans proud. But what will it be based on? Iraq? The “war on terror”? Social Security? The “spread freedom” rhetoric of his second inaugural?
I hardly think so.
Our president needs to take an hour out of his vacation and listen to Lyndon Johnson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
