By William Fisher
While the Commentariat was scratching its collective head trying to figure out what exactly President Bush meant in his ‘spread freedom’ Inaugural speech, he did it for us.
And the answer appeared to be: “Nothing”.
Reporting on a hastily convened White House press conference last week, Peter Baker wrote in The Washington Post: that the president sees his Inauguration Day goal of 'ending tyranny in our world' as a long-term ideal rather than a new policy redefining U.S. relations with repressive governments, as he ratcheted back expectations of a more muscular approach to spreading freedom abroad.
He went on to note, "While saying he had 'firmly planted the flag of liberty' in Iraq, Bush offered no tangible plans for how he would plant it in other countries, suggesting instead that the stirring words of last week's inaugural address were meant as a statement of principles recapitulating his first-term practices."
" 'I don't think foreign policy is an either/or proposition,' Mr. Bush said in answer to a question about how a country's progress in advancing freedom might be balanced against other American interests, such as securing China's aid in disarming North Korea."
This should come as no great surprise. The kind of Olympian rhetoric we heard at the Inauguration has been used by many other American presidents – including Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan.
But, as former Senator Gary Hart points out, “the evocation of Woodrow Wilson as the standard-bearer for the export of democracy neglects the important distinction that Wilson believed this to be a mission for the entire democratic world, not just America, and one carried out peacefully, not through the use of force.” When Franklin Roosevelt said “the only thing we had to fear is fear itself”, he immediately started to tackle to the despair of the Great Depression. When in 1947 Harry Truman announced the “Truman Doctrine” for containment of the Soviet Union, he said, “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” He did exactly that. John F. Kennedy’s 1961 “ask not” speech -- “pay any price, bear any burden” -- was followed by the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress in Latin America, and the beginning of the end to racial discrimination in the U.S. And when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an ‘evil empire’ and said, “From here on in we tell the truth”, the U.S. changed policy, and that in part led to the implosion of the USSR.
In other words, these presidents tried to narrow the chasm between idealistic rhetoric and the world as we find it.
Why the world didn’t immediately recognize Mr. Bush’s speech for what it was is in retrospect a no-brainer. First, he is the first born-again evangelical in American history. And his speech, in cadence as well as content, was clearly informed by scripture in which he deeply believes. Who could know how far his faith would take the nation? Second, his record. Most American presidents have not found themselves being inaugurated on the heels of two invasions to effect regime change. And with neither the Afghanistan nor the Iraq adventures anywhere near finished, the world was entitled to wonder ‘who’s next?’
That’s still an open question. During the presidential campaign, neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle virtually fell off the radar. Now they’re back, and their subject of choice is Iran. Perle is saying, “Before we face war, there are things we can do today. Tens of millions of people are unhappy with Iran’s theocracy. We should be providing material support to the opposition…Broadcasting…helping young Iranians who want to publish…helping students, trade unions…(This could) bring about regime change by Iranians for Iranians…(and it) could well take out the Mullahs…We should spread the demand for good governance.”
That’s pretty much what the neocons were saying publicly before the Iraq invasion, while privately urging much more muscular action from the Administration. And it should be remembered that it was “working with the opposition” that brought us Ahmed Chalabi.
Moreover, those of us who dislike theocracies have to wonder whether, even if the Iranian reformers rise up and “take out the Mullahs”, Iran is likely to scrap its nuclear program. Perle and his buddies didn’t seem to understand much about the strength of nationalism before Iraq and they don’t seem to have learned much since.
Thankfully, a reality check on the state of the U.S. military should signal that an armed invasion of Iran is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told us at her confirmation hearing that diplomacy will be her number one priority. She could have no more urgent start-point than Iran. And joining the Europeans in their current negotiations would signal the Administration’s intention to try to resolve the Iran problem multilaterally.
But Dr. Rice also told Senators that the U.S. has “other issues” with Iran that might block agreement on the nuclear issue.
Most observers think she meant its abysmal human rights record. But applying this kind of double standard would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. Many countries that America is proud to call its allies (read: partners in the ‘war on terror’) have equally abysmal human rights records. Thus, the U.S. turns a blind eye to the authoritarian regimes and the human rights atrocities they consistently commit in Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Libya (which has become the Administration’s poster child for ‘reform’ because it turned over its weapons of mass destruction).
In these countries – many of which receive large amounts in U.S. aid – the real weapons of mass destruction are the police and the security services. Does the president intend to deny America’s blessing and America’s aid to these countries? Not likely. The CIA keeps its fleet of Gulfstream jets busy ‘rendering’ prisoners to many of these countries – where they can do to prisoners what is supposed to be unconstitutional in the U.S.
There is also another kind of double standard today that places the Bush speech squarely in the realm of fantasy. The world no longer believes the United States, thanks to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and raids on the civil rights of citizens, immigrants and visitors alike.
So what we can expect from the administration in the next four years?
Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, writes that no one would suggest that the U.S. “should conduct an amoral foreign policy that ignores what governments are doing to their citizens. We should encourage the rule of law, human rights, and meaningful economic and political participation. But as President Bush acknowledged, ‘The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations’. In the interim, the U.S. needs a foreign policy that deals with the world as it is.”
So the near-term future will be far more about realpolitik than inaugural rhetoric. Given President Bush’s inclination to ‘bring it on’, the status quo may be a blessing.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
AMERICA'S HOLY WAR
Mary Pitt is a septuagenarian Kansan who is self-employed and active in the political arena. Her concerns are her four-generation family and the continuance of the United States as a democracy with a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Comments and criticism may be addressed to mpitt@cox.net .
by Mary Pitt
The assault on our freedoms by the "Old Testament Christians", those who use the Ten Commandments as their lodestar and place great faith in Jewish Law, the advocacy of Holy War, and the justifications of the ancient prophesies in their missionary zeal to control the world, are finally getting some opposition from the devout followers of the example of Jesus Christ. With Jim Wallis of Sojourner Magazine at its head, the horde of "Quiet Christians" is finally on the march, espousing their belief in "a kinder, gentler" religion and the teachings of Jesus as He walked the earth.
For the Bibliophiles among you, Mr. Wallis refers you to Matthew 25 and the words of Christ Himself as regards the standards on which we will be judged by our treatment of our fellow man. Also in the Book of Matthew, Chapter 5, Jesus makes it very clear that He was the "fulfillment" of the Law and set an even higher standard for the Christians than that which had governed the Jews. Taking "one-tenth of our increase" to the altar is no longer enough! Not if we drive by in our nice cars on the way to do our "Christian duty" past the homeless who are sleeping in the streets, not if there are hungry children, trying to learn in a seedy, under-funded school or mothers reduced to begging or worse, to keep food in the house for her babies. He tells us, first, to make peace with our adversary, to be reconciled with our brethren, and to give what is asked by those in need. The mandatory stonings and beheadings of the Old Testament were replaced with the eternal forgiveness of a loving God. This was depicted by the statement, "If there be any among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
This is the true test of Christianity. Jesus did not tell us to go forth into the world and kill those who refuse to agree with us. His instructions were that we go forth in peace, teaching and nurturing, to bring souls to Him by example. He told us not to lust for power and earthly kingdoms or riches, but to aspire to a higher goal of peace and brotherhood. We are admonished to let Caesar be Caesar and neither to support nor oppose worldly governments other than in a non-violent manner, with dignity and love. He specifically enjoins us from the type of radical evangelical militant "Christianity" that is evident in the "religious right" of our time. Indeed, he admonished against the practices of "shouting prayers on the street" in order to vaunt our own piety to the passers-by, but instead to pray in private and to let our behavior testify to our relationship with God. This does not mean that we must deny our faith, only that we must demonstrate it by our actions.
How many of us would open our homes to an orphan, less a subsidized program of reimbursement by a social service agency? Who would open the door to a hungry, homeless beggar? Who would offer to meet the needs of a stranger if it involved a real sacrifice of our own money, our time, or our privacy? That is the true test of our Christianity! It has become so easy to "give to the church" or to "donate to charity" those things which we feel we can spare. We have institutionalized charities so that we do not have to become personally involved, but they cannot fill all the needs. We have made government programs which still fall short of being sufficient and then we snarl at the cost because we are unwilling to make the sacrifice of paying sufficient taxes to fund them. We consider poverty, squalor, and illness as not being our concern but somebody else's problem. "We take care of our own", we cry, "and others could, too, if they would only apply themselves." But, in both testaments, we are adjured that we are not only "our brother's keepers" but that anyone we meet should be treated as our "neighbor" and we must love them as ourselves. In His Book, God tells us that greed and selfishness are as deadly as the other sins which we must avoid..
While we may boast of the "surge" of professed Christianity in our great nation, we have become unforgiveably selfish. We want it all and we want it now! At the time of the greatest affluence in the history of the world we, as a nation, have become more acquisitive and more personally greedy than any since the days of ancient Rome. We send our "all-volunteer army" to destroy innocent familes in Iraq, holding them in involuntary servitude in the manner of the Roman Legions while the sons of the rich and powerful lounge at home, establishing lucrative careers and surviving above the fray. We loot the resources of the world, leaving the inhabitants in poverty while we celebrate our "chosen" position as their "betters". And then we go to church and praise God for His "gifts" as if we truly deserve them.
While those who disapprove of the actions and the proclamations of certitude by the Christians on the right would find it much easier to love them were we not constantly bombarded by those who would befuddle our minds and threaten our souls by telling us that they have a "direct line" to God and that He is telling them things that are at odds with the instructions that He left for us in His Book. We find no place in His Word that we are to persecute those who do not live in our ways, to treat them as less than human, or to hound them to their graves with signs proclaiming, "GOD HATES FAGS"! At no place do we find instructions that we are to mistreat and neglect children who are born out of wedlock, in no place are we commanded to commit such violence as to bomb abortion clinics, and in no place are we commanded to impose our beliefs on others by law or by public condemnation. At no time were we given permission or adjuration to hate the "sons of Ishmael" who live under the same protections of God as do the "sons of Israel". These are transgressions that are hard to acknowledge, much less to forgive and we will leave that forgiveness to God Who, alone, has the ultimate power to do so.
These "Quiet Christians" are performing their responsibility under the charge left us by Christ Himself when they speak out against the godless policies of the current government and advocate for peace rather than war and love rather than hate. We may be able to vanquish the armies of those who dislike and disrespect us, but war will not necessarily bring peace and the threat of death will not create love. We need to begin to think on a higher plane and ask ourselves, with our minds open to truth, "What WOULD Jesus do?" The answer is in His words and in His example.
by Mary Pitt
The assault on our freedoms by the "Old Testament Christians", those who use the Ten Commandments as their lodestar and place great faith in Jewish Law, the advocacy of Holy War, and the justifications of the ancient prophesies in their missionary zeal to control the world, are finally getting some opposition from the devout followers of the example of Jesus Christ. With Jim Wallis of Sojourner Magazine at its head, the horde of "Quiet Christians" is finally on the march, espousing their belief in "a kinder, gentler" religion and the teachings of Jesus as He walked the earth.
For the Bibliophiles among you, Mr. Wallis refers you to Matthew 25 and the words of Christ Himself as regards the standards on which we will be judged by our treatment of our fellow man. Also in the Book of Matthew, Chapter 5, Jesus makes it very clear that He was the "fulfillment" of the Law and set an even higher standard for the Christians than that which had governed the Jews. Taking "one-tenth of our increase" to the altar is no longer enough! Not if we drive by in our nice cars on the way to do our "Christian duty" past the homeless who are sleeping in the streets, not if there are hungry children, trying to learn in a seedy, under-funded school or mothers reduced to begging or worse, to keep food in the house for her babies. He tells us, first, to make peace with our adversary, to be reconciled with our brethren, and to give what is asked by those in need. The mandatory stonings and beheadings of the Old Testament were replaced with the eternal forgiveness of a loving God. This was depicted by the statement, "If there be any among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
This is the true test of Christianity. Jesus did not tell us to go forth into the world and kill those who refuse to agree with us. His instructions were that we go forth in peace, teaching and nurturing, to bring souls to Him by example. He told us not to lust for power and earthly kingdoms or riches, but to aspire to a higher goal of peace and brotherhood. We are admonished to let Caesar be Caesar and neither to support nor oppose worldly governments other than in a non-violent manner, with dignity and love. He specifically enjoins us from the type of radical evangelical militant "Christianity" that is evident in the "religious right" of our time. Indeed, he admonished against the practices of "shouting prayers on the street" in order to vaunt our own piety to the passers-by, but instead to pray in private and to let our behavior testify to our relationship with God. This does not mean that we must deny our faith, only that we must demonstrate it by our actions.
How many of us would open our homes to an orphan, less a subsidized program of reimbursement by a social service agency? Who would open the door to a hungry, homeless beggar? Who would offer to meet the needs of a stranger if it involved a real sacrifice of our own money, our time, or our privacy? That is the true test of our Christianity! It has become so easy to "give to the church" or to "donate to charity" those things which we feel we can spare. We have institutionalized charities so that we do not have to become personally involved, but they cannot fill all the needs. We have made government programs which still fall short of being sufficient and then we snarl at the cost because we are unwilling to make the sacrifice of paying sufficient taxes to fund them. We consider poverty, squalor, and illness as not being our concern but somebody else's problem. "We take care of our own", we cry, "and others could, too, if they would only apply themselves." But, in both testaments, we are adjured that we are not only "our brother's keepers" but that anyone we meet should be treated as our "neighbor" and we must love them as ourselves. In His Book, God tells us that greed and selfishness are as deadly as the other sins which we must avoid..
While we may boast of the "surge" of professed Christianity in our great nation, we have become unforgiveably selfish. We want it all and we want it now! At the time of the greatest affluence in the history of the world we, as a nation, have become more acquisitive and more personally greedy than any since the days of ancient Rome. We send our "all-volunteer army" to destroy innocent familes in Iraq, holding them in involuntary servitude in the manner of the Roman Legions while the sons of the rich and powerful lounge at home, establishing lucrative careers and surviving above the fray. We loot the resources of the world, leaving the inhabitants in poverty while we celebrate our "chosen" position as their "betters". And then we go to church and praise God for His "gifts" as if we truly deserve them.
While those who disapprove of the actions and the proclamations of certitude by the Christians on the right would find it much easier to love them were we not constantly bombarded by those who would befuddle our minds and threaten our souls by telling us that they have a "direct line" to God and that He is telling them things that are at odds with the instructions that He left for us in His Book. We find no place in His Word that we are to persecute those who do not live in our ways, to treat them as less than human, or to hound them to their graves with signs proclaiming, "GOD HATES FAGS"! At no place do we find instructions that we are to mistreat and neglect children who are born out of wedlock, in no place are we commanded to commit such violence as to bomb abortion clinics, and in no place are we commanded to impose our beliefs on others by law or by public condemnation. At no time were we given permission or adjuration to hate the "sons of Ishmael" who live under the same protections of God as do the "sons of Israel". These are transgressions that are hard to acknowledge, much less to forgive and we will leave that forgiveness to God Who, alone, has the ultimate power to do so.
These "Quiet Christians" are performing their responsibility under the charge left us by Christ Himself when they speak out against the godless policies of the current government and advocate for peace rather than war and love rather than hate. We may be able to vanquish the armies of those who dislike and disrespect us, but war will not necessarily bring peace and the threat of death will not create love. We need to begin to think on a higher plane and ask ourselves, with our minds open to truth, "What WOULD Jesus do?" The answer is in His words and in His example.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Bush's Widening Credibility Gap
The article below is by Rami G. Khoury, Executive Editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. It is reproduced here with permission of the author.
By Rami G. Khouri
Bush's high-minded talk about freedom and democracy went over like a lead balloon in the Middle East, explains Beirut Daily Star editor Rami Khouri. The reaction would be different if Bush—and the United States in general—had a record of genuine support for self-determination and the development of democratic institutions in all nations.
Rami G. Khouri is executive editor of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper, published throughout the Middle East with the International Herald Tribune
President George W. Bush's inauguration speech Thursday left most people in the Middle East unimpressed and unmoved, and more concerned than ever about U.S. foreign policy directions. The prevalent reaction in this region was that he has merely raised the level of American double standards in the world to a new level of incredulity, given the massive gap between America's rhetorical commitment to democracy and freedom and the reality of its often whimsical foreign policy priorities. Five specific problems in Bush's speech stand out starkly in the eyes of observers in the Middle East.
The first is that Bush's ringing endorsement of freedom and liberty—he mentioned the words 42 times in his speech—do not necessarily match the priorities of most people in the developing world, where national liberation, development, dignity, justice and meeting basic human needs tend to be much more urgent and common demands. Bush accurately echoed the powerful appeal and hallowed place of liberty in America's history and values, but clearly he does not grasp the nuanced order of multiple priorities that define the lives of individuals and entire societies in other lands.
Once again, he reflected the neoconservative tendency to allow peculiarly American emotionalism and triumphalism to prevail over the more sober dictates of global realism. Linked to this is the fact that most people in the Middle East—and probably the rest of the globe—reject the idea that the United States is either divinely mandated or formally certified by any global authority to promote freedom or any other value around the world. The world sees Americans' own sense of the universal power of their fine national ideals as both presumptuous bombast and unacceptably predatory aggression.
Second, most Middle Easterners feel that the United States' rhetorical commitment to freedom and democracy is sharply contradicted by the United States' enduring support for autocrats and dictators. This was not just a Cold War problem, for even since the fall of communism a decade and a half ago, the United States has continued to support undemocratic thugs, authoritarian strongmen and benevolent autocrats, in countries like Egypt, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and numerous others.
The third prevalent criticism of Bush's cry for freedom worldwide will focus on American policy in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Strong American support for Israel and for many of its policies in occupying and colonizing Palestinian lands will be seen in the Arab world as a practical commitment to the subjugation of the Palestinians—not their liberty. This flagrant gap between an American rhetoric of liberty and a long-standing policy commitment to Israel that perpetuates Palestinian occupation will continue to be the single biggest reason for deep Arab skepticism of American promises or rhetoric.
The fourth reason for widespread doubt about Bush's pledges concerns his suspect motives. Arabs and Muslims widely already reject Bush's simplistic analysis that 'resentment and tyranny' in the Arab-Asian region are the causes of the terror that assaulted the United States on 9/11, and that the perpetrators were motivated by hatred for American notions of freedom. American policies 'to promote freedom and democracy' in the Middle East are not seen as mainly designed altruistically to help the recipient people, but rather are seen as self-serving instruments of America's own defense. When the U.S. government acts to protect its own people and national interests, carrying out its legitimate right and duty, but does so under the rhetorical screen of calling for freedom and democracy for others, those others remain highly dubious because they do not believe that Washington is acting out of sincerity and solidarity.
The fifth concern about Bush's second inaugural speech reflects a fear that Washington will now pursue more regime changes in lands beyond Afghanistan and Iraq—both of which are deeply troubled and unstable since the American-led wars in those places. Iran, Syria and others will be concerned that Washington will use its diplomatic, economic and military assets to pressure them and perhaps change their regimes and governance systems. Pre-emptive warfare has become official policy for Washington in the past three years, and Bush's speech Thursday frightens many in the world that we will see much more of this strategy in the years to come.
These five basic concerns will be widely echoed around the Middle East and other parts of the world in the days to come—not because people dislike Bush's rhetoric, but rather because they have mainly felt the negative, often destructive, consequences of American foreign policy in recent years. Instead of flamboyantly—almost childishly—summoning divine inspiration for an American global 'calling', as Bush did in his speech, the United States would do better to craft practical foreign policies that are consistent, undiscriminating and based on working with like-minded partners around the world.
Middle Easterners and people around the world would jump over each other to work with the United States to promote freedom and democracy—but only if Washington's policies sought such goals consistently, in all lands, for all peoples, without whimsy or exceptions. The United States should not merely affirm that freedom is indivisible; it should implement a foreign policy that gives life to that belief. In recent years, Washington has been too willing to support dictators and occupying powers for its sudden calls for freedom everywhere to be taken seriously. That is why Bush will hear a great deal of skepticism from around the Middle East—and other parts of the world—in the next few days. The gap between the rhetoric and the policy is simply too wide, and has been for many, many years.
By Rami G. Khouri
Bush's high-minded talk about freedom and democracy went over like a lead balloon in the Middle East, explains Beirut Daily Star editor Rami Khouri. The reaction would be different if Bush—and the United States in general—had a record of genuine support for self-determination and the development of democratic institutions in all nations.
Rami G. Khouri is executive editor of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper, published throughout the Middle East with the International Herald Tribune
President George W. Bush's inauguration speech Thursday left most people in the Middle East unimpressed and unmoved, and more concerned than ever about U.S. foreign policy directions. The prevalent reaction in this region was that he has merely raised the level of American double standards in the world to a new level of incredulity, given the massive gap between America's rhetorical commitment to democracy and freedom and the reality of its often whimsical foreign policy priorities. Five specific problems in Bush's speech stand out starkly in the eyes of observers in the Middle East.
The first is that Bush's ringing endorsement of freedom and liberty—he mentioned the words 42 times in his speech—do not necessarily match the priorities of most people in the developing world, where national liberation, development, dignity, justice and meeting basic human needs tend to be much more urgent and common demands. Bush accurately echoed the powerful appeal and hallowed place of liberty in America's history and values, but clearly he does not grasp the nuanced order of multiple priorities that define the lives of individuals and entire societies in other lands.
Once again, he reflected the neoconservative tendency to allow peculiarly American emotionalism and triumphalism to prevail over the more sober dictates of global realism. Linked to this is the fact that most people in the Middle East—and probably the rest of the globe—reject the idea that the United States is either divinely mandated or formally certified by any global authority to promote freedom or any other value around the world. The world sees Americans' own sense of the universal power of their fine national ideals as both presumptuous bombast and unacceptably predatory aggression.
Second, most Middle Easterners feel that the United States' rhetorical commitment to freedom and democracy is sharply contradicted by the United States' enduring support for autocrats and dictators. This was not just a Cold War problem, for even since the fall of communism a decade and a half ago, the United States has continued to support undemocratic thugs, authoritarian strongmen and benevolent autocrats, in countries like Egypt, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and numerous others.
The third prevalent criticism of Bush's cry for freedom worldwide will focus on American policy in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Strong American support for Israel and for many of its policies in occupying and colonizing Palestinian lands will be seen in the Arab world as a practical commitment to the subjugation of the Palestinians—not their liberty. This flagrant gap between an American rhetoric of liberty and a long-standing policy commitment to Israel that perpetuates Palestinian occupation will continue to be the single biggest reason for deep Arab skepticism of American promises or rhetoric.
The fourth reason for widespread doubt about Bush's pledges concerns his suspect motives. Arabs and Muslims widely already reject Bush's simplistic analysis that 'resentment and tyranny' in the Arab-Asian region are the causes of the terror that assaulted the United States on 9/11, and that the perpetrators were motivated by hatred for American notions of freedom. American policies 'to promote freedom and democracy' in the Middle East are not seen as mainly designed altruistically to help the recipient people, but rather are seen as self-serving instruments of America's own defense. When the U.S. government acts to protect its own people and national interests, carrying out its legitimate right and duty, but does so under the rhetorical screen of calling for freedom and democracy for others, those others remain highly dubious because they do not believe that Washington is acting out of sincerity and solidarity.
The fifth concern about Bush's second inaugural speech reflects a fear that Washington will now pursue more regime changes in lands beyond Afghanistan and Iraq—both of which are deeply troubled and unstable since the American-led wars in those places. Iran, Syria and others will be concerned that Washington will use its diplomatic, economic and military assets to pressure them and perhaps change their regimes and governance systems. Pre-emptive warfare has become official policy for Washington in the past three years, and Bush's speech Thursday frightens many in the world that we will see much more of this strategy in the years to come.
These five basic concerns will be widely echoed around the Middle East and other parts of the world in the days to come—not because people dislike Bush's rhetoric, but rather because they have mainly felt the negative, often destructive, consequences of American foreign policy in recent years. Instead of flamboyantly—almost childishly—summoning divine inspiration for an American global 'calling', as Bush did in his speech, the United States would do better to craft practical foreign policies that are consistent, undiscriminating and based on working with like-minded partners around the world.
Middle Easterners and people around the world would jump over each other to work with the United States to promote freedom and democracy—but only if Washington's policies sought such goals consistently, in all lands, for all peoples, without whimsy or exceptions. The United States should not merely affirm that freedom is indivisible; it should implement a foreign policy that gives life to that belief. In recent years, Washington has been too willing to support dictators and occupying powers for its sudden calls for freedom everywhere to be taken seriously. That is why Bush will hear a great deal of skepticism from around the Middle East—and other parts of the world—in the next few days. The gap between the rhetoric and the policy is simply too wide, and has been for many, many years.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
In Giving up Our Rights, We'd Lose the War
Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at the Yale University Law School. He is the author of "What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said". The essay below was first pubished in the September 11, 2002, edition of the New Orleans Times-Picayune. It is presented here with permission of the author.
By Jack Balkin
Whenever our country faces new threats, changes in constitutional structure soon follow. That was true during both World War II and the Cold War. But these changes do not require us to give up our civil liberties. Quite the contrary: Although World War II began with the internment of Japanese-Americans, our experience of fighting a racist Nazi regime eventually led President Harry S. Truman to desegregate the Armed Forces. The Cold War began with McCarthyite hysteria; yet the need to distinguish ourselves from communist dictatorships eventually led to Brown v. Board of Education and a great flowering of civil liberties. Repeatedly Americans have discovered that we respond best to new dangers when we remain true to our deepest values.
Today many argue that the War on Terrorism requires Americans to surrender their civil rights and restructure our constitutional system to give the President ever greater power. But the lesson of history is precisely the opposite. Poised on the brink of war, with an administration altogether too sure of itself, we need democratic accountability and constitutional safeguards more than ever.
Well before September 11th the Bush Administration sought to operate without interference or consultation and to disclose as little information as possible. Its refusal to reveal who met with Vice President Dick Cheney when the administration was formulating its energy policies is only the most well-known example. The administration's approach to the press has become increasingly Orwellian, cloaked in euphemisms and newspeak, routinely describing its positions as their opposites and blatantly denying contradictions and shifts in government policy. Secrecy has been its watchword; bullying its strategy of choice.
The events of September 11th only confirmed the administration's worst instincts about how to govern the nation. Domestically, it rounded up hundreds of immigrants while refusing to release their names to the public. It announced the creation of secret military tribunals with no right of appeal to the judiciary. It detained American citizens in military prisons without the right to consult an attorney or seek judicial review. It ordered a wholesale closure of immigration hearings to the public, barring not only the press but family members. It repeatedly sought to make as much new law as possible without consulting Congress, and it repeatedly insisted before the courts that it had unreviewable power to do whatever it wanted to prosecute the War on Terrorism. In foreign policy it has announced its determination to attack another country preemptively in violation of international law, whether or not Congress gives authorization, and whether or not our allies support us. Only after weeks of protest from congressmen and former government officials did the President grudgingly announce that he would seek Congressional approval for an invasion of Iraq. Even so, administration officials have continued to promote the idea that the United States should wield its military power early, often and unilaterally to secure its interests around the world.
The Bush Administration's policies are not simply unwise or undiplomatic. They also undermine constitutional government. Open government is crucial to a free society; it keeps government officials honest and deters them from making bad decisions and covering up their mistakes. Democracy presumes that government officials are accountable to the people, but accountability becomes impossible if the people can't find out what the government is doing in their name. Separation of powers lets the different branches of government check each other's errors and enthusiasms, but it cannot work if the executive branch insists that it will do whatever it wants anyway. The rule of law prevents government officials from arbitrary action, but it means nothing if the administration can flout international agreements, round up citizens and refuse them access to the courts.
The War on Terrorism is a war to defend our country's way of life. That way of life includes a commitment to constitutional checks and balances, individual liberty, democratic accountability, open government and the rule of law. It would be ironic indeed if in our zeal to preserve our way of life we destroyed it.
By Jack Balkin
Whenever our country faces new threats, changes in constitutional structure soon follow. That was true during both World War II and the Cold War. But these changes do not require us to give up our civil liberties. Quite the contrary: Although World War II began with the internment of Japanese-Americans, our experience of fighting a racist Nazi regime eventually led President Harry S. Truman to desegregate the Armed Forces. The Cold War began with McCarthyite hysteria; yet the need to distinguish ourselves from communist dictatorships eventually led to Brown v. Board of Education and a great flowering of civil liberties. Repeatedly Americans have discovered that we respond best to new dangers when we remain true to our deepest values.
Today many argue that the War on Terrorism requires Americans to surrender their civil rights and restructure our constitutional system to give the President ever greater power. But the lesson of history is precisely the opposite. Poised on the brink of war, with an administration altogether too sure of itself, we need democratic accountability and constitutional safeguards more than ever.
Well before September 11th the Bush Administration sought to operate without interference or consultation and to disclose as little information as possible. Its refusal to reveal who met with Vice President Dick Cheney when the administration was formulating its energy policies is only the most well-known example. The administration's approach to the press has become increasingly Orwellian, cloaked in euphemisms and newspeak, routinely describing its positions as their opposites and blatantly denying contradictions and shifts in government policy. Secrecy has been its watchword; bullying its strategy of choice.
The events of September 11th only confirmed the administration's worst instincts about how to govern the nation. Domestically, it rounded up hundreds of immigrants while refusing to release their names to the public. It announced the creation of secret military tribunals with no right of appeal to the judiciary. It detained American citizens in military prisons without the right to consult an attorney or seek judicial review. It ordered a wholesale closure of immigration hearings to the public, barring not only the press but family members. It repeatedly sought to make as much new law as possible without consulting Congress, and it repeatedly insisted before the courts that it had unreviewable power to do whatever it wanted to prosecute the War on Terrorism. In foreign policy it has announced its determination to attack another country preemptively in violation of international law, whether or not Congress gives authorization, and whether or not our allies support us. Only after weeks of protest from congressmen and former government officials did the President grudgingly announce that he would seek Congressional approval for an invasion of Iraq. Even so, administration officials have continued to promote the idea that the United States should wield its military power early, often and unilaterally to secure its interests around the world.
The Bush Administration's policies are not simply unwise or undiplomatic. They also undermine constitutional government. Open government is crucial to a free society; it keeps government officials honest and deters them from making bad decisions and covering up their mistakes. Democracy presumes that government officials are accountable to the people, but accountability becomes impossible if the people can't find out what the government is doing in their name. Separation of powers lets the different branches of government check each other's errors and enthusiasms, but it cannot work if the executive branch insists that it will do whatever it wants anyway. The rule of law prevents government officials from arbitrary action, but it means nothing if the administration can flout international agreements, round up citizens and refuse them access to the courts.
The War on Terrorism is a war to defend our country's way of life. That way of life includes a commitment to constitutional checks and balances, individual liberty, democratic accountability, open government and the rule of law. It would be ironic indeed if in our zeal to preserve our way of life we destroyed it.
Monday, January 17, 2005
DAVID AND GOLIATH
By William Fisher
His name is Clare Callan.
He is a feisty 85-year-old former congressman from rural Nebraska.
And he is asking the Supreme Court to declare that President Bush had no legal authority to go to war in Iraq.
Mr. Callan does not see himself as Don Quixote. He is not asking the Supreme Court to end the war. He is a World War II veteran served on a US Navy destroyer in the Pacific, who is proud of the US military, proud of his own service, and proud of the troops fighting in Iraq.
But he believes that president violated the Constitution when he sent American troops into harm’s way. Now, he wants the nation’s highest court to say so.
Here’s his case:
When Congress passed the Iraq Resolution, it specifically made it subject to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, known as the War Power Act. The Iraq resolution was definite. “Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution,” the Resolution said. It did not give the President authority to take the nation to war. It granted him only the right to determine whether the standards required by War Powers Act Congress had been met.
The War Powers Act was passed near the end of the Vietnam War in an effort to ensure that future Congresses would be less likely to abdicate their constitutional responsibility to decide whether the nation should go to war.
To justify going to war, the War Powers Act sets out several criteria. Most important of these is "clear" evidence of an "imminent" threat to US security. The words "clear" and “imminent” are used repeatedly in the War Powers Act to describe situations where US military force is permitted.
In the run-up to the invasion – and ever since -- the president inexplicably went out of his way to avoid using the words “clear” and “imminent”. He described the threat from Iraq with many adjectives such as “growing” and “gathering”. But, while some of his surrogates, including his then press secretary, Ari Fleisher, declared the threat “imminent”, the president never did.
Mr. Callan’s suit charges that the president thereby failed to meet his Constitutional obligation.
Mr. Callan filed his suit in a US Circuit Court three years ago. It has been rejected and appealed multiple times since then, finally working its way up to the Supreme Court. When the Court met last month to decide the cases it would hear in its next session, it too rejected Mr. Callan. But, undeterred, he is now preparing a petition for rehearing, and hopes the Court will finally listen to his complaint.
Mr. Callan – whose favorite pastime is talking politics with his fellow veterans who gather at the Moose Lodge in Odell, Nebraska – served one term as a Democrat in the 89th Congress, when Lyndon Johnson was president. He stayed in Washington for a time after losing a reelection bid, and had several jobs including deputy director of the Rural Electrification Administration. He has financed his current legal battle from his own pocket – and thinks it’s money well spent.
“We all saw what happened when President Johnson fabricated a pretext for going to war in Vietnam. The War Powers Act was passed to prevent future presidents from doing that ever again, “ he says.
Ironically, some of the nation’s best-known conservatives appear to be on Mr. Callan’s side. For example, in a January 13 appearance televised on C-Span, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer agreed that “being the right thing to do” should play no role in how judges enforce the law.
Both Justices agreed that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to do what they personally think is "morally right. Justice Scalia said the court should not be so “arrogant” as to believe that our "moral" standards should be applied to interpret the law. He said: Although the law "cannot become divorced from life," no one should substitute his judgment for that of the legislature. Majority sentiment expressed by the election of a President does not empower any President to act above the law or to slant interpretation of the law to conform to a predetermined agenda.
Many conservative pundits agree. For example, in an August 4 edition of “The Beltway Boys” on Fox News, panelists agreed that Bush never labeled the Iraqi threat "imminent" -- only "urgent". Morton M. Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call, said, “I think everybody would agree that the word ‘imminent’ was the crucial word, over which the fight took place. And in the case of Iraq, clearly there was not an imminent threat, and Bush didn't say there was.” Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed: President Bush “said the opposite”.
US Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, in a speech on March 12, 2004, said, “"One of the great myths generated by the president's opponents is that he justified action by claiming the threat posed by Saddam's regime was imminent. Well, the stubborn fact is, that wasn't the president's claim -- in fact, he specifically disclaimed that rationale for his decision.”
Kyl recalled the president’s 2003 State of the Union address, when the president stated: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”
The Bush administration defends the war on Iraq as “right,” regardless of the evidence, now, or before the war, and provides further justification for the war by arguing that the war in Iraq has made us safer. However, as Justice Scalia said, “Right is not necessarily legal.”
Mr. Callan hopes that, belatedly, the Supreme Court will find it illegal.
His name is Clare Callan.
He is a feisty 85-year-old former congressman from rural Nebraska.
And he is asking the Supreme Court to declare that President Bush had no legal authority to go to war in Iraq.
Mr. Callan does not see himself as Don Quixote. He is not asking the Supreme Court to end the war. He is a World War II veteran served on a US Navy destroyer in the Pacific, who is proud of the US military, proud of his own service, and proud of the troops fighting in Iraq.
But he believes that president violated the Constitution when he sent American troops into harm’s way. Now, he wants the nation’s highest court to say so.
Here’s his case:
When Congress passed the Iraq Resolution, it specifically made it subject to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, known as the War Power Act. The Iraq resolution was definite. “Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution,” the Resolution said. It did not give the President authority to take the nation to war. It granted him only the right to determine whether the standards required by War Powers Act Congress had been met.
The War Powers Act was passed near the end of the Vietnam War in an effort to ensure that future Congresses would be less likely to abdicate their constitutional responsibility to decide whether the nation should go to war.
To justify going to war, the War Powers Act sets out several criteria. Most important of these is "clear" evidence of an "imminent" threat to US security. The words "clear" and “imminent” are used repeatedly in the War Powers Act to describe situations where US military force is permitted.
In the run-up to the invasion – and ever since -- the president inexplicably went out of his way to avoid using the words “clear” and “imminent”. He described the threat from Iraq with many adjectives such as “growing” and “gathering”. But, while some of his surrogates, including his then press secretary, Ari Fleisher, declared the threat “imminent”, the president never did.
Mr. Callan’s suit charges that the president thereby failed to meet his Constitutional obligation.
Mr. Callan filed his suit in a US Circuit Court three years ago. It has been rejected and appealed multiple times since then, finally working its way up to the Supreme Court. When the Court met last month to decide the cases it would hear in its next session, it too rejected Mr. Callan. But, undeterred, he is now preparing a petition for rehearing, and hopes the Court will finally listen to his complaint.
Mr. Callan – whose favorite pastime is talking politics with his fellow veterans who gather at the Moose Lodge in Odell, Nebraska – served one term as a Democrat in the 89th Congress, when Lyndon Johnson was president. He stayed in Washington for a time after losing a reelection bid, and had several jobs including deputy director of the Rural Electrification Administration. He has financed his current legal battle from his own pocket – and thinks it’s money well spent.
“We all saw what happened when President Johnson fabricated a pretext for going to war in Vietnam. The War Powers Act was passed to prevent future presidents from doing that ever again, “ he says.
Ironically, some of the nation’s best-known conservatives appear to be on Mr. Callan’s side. For example, in a January 13 appearance televised on C-Span, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer agreed that “being the right thing to do” should play no role in how judges enforce the law.
Both Justices agreed that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to do what they personally think is "morally right. Justice Scalia said the court should not be so “arrogant” as to believe that our "moral" standards should be applied to interpret the law. He said: Although the law "cannot become divorced from life," no one should substitute his judgment for that of the legislature. Majority sentiment expressed by the election of a President does not empower any President to act above the law or to slant interpretation of the law to conform to a predetermined agenda.
Many conservative pundits agree. For example, in an August 4 edition of “The Beltway Boys” on Fox News, panelists agreed that Bush never labeled the Iraqi threat "imminent" -- only "urgent". Morton M. Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call, said, “I think everybody would agree that the word ‘imminent’ was the crucial word, over which the fight took place. And in the case of Iraq, clearly there was not an imminent threat, and Bush didn't say there was.” Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed: President Bush “said the opposite”.
US Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, in a speech on March 12, 2004, said, “"One of the great myths generated by the president's opponents is that he justified action by claiming the threat posed by Saddam's regime was imminent. Well, the stubborn fact is, that wasn't the president's claim -- in fact, he specifically disclaimed that rationale for his decision.”
Kyl recalled the president’s 2003 State of the Union address, when the president stated: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”
The Bush administration defends the war on Iraq as “right,” regardless of the evidence, now, or before the war, and provides further justification for the war by arguing that the war in Iraq has made us safer. However, as Justice Scalia said, “Right is not necessarily legal.”
Mr. Callan hopes that, belatedly, the Supreme Court will find it illegal.
Friday, January 14, 2005
CYBERSPIN
By William Fisher
It’s a pity that all the Bush Administration cabinet-level posts have been filled, because there is at least one undiscovered candidate: The White House Webmaster.
I discovered his work yesterday while surfing the web. Here’s a sample:
Under the heading “Disarm Saddam Hussein”, the surfer will find this text:
“The gravest danger we face in the war on terror is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
“Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.
“Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N.
“The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:
· 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people
· 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
· 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents
· Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
“From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.
“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities.
“Thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors.
“Iraqi officials accompany all inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N.
“Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN be killed, along with their families.
“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
“The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene next week to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. We will consult. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will act for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world.”
But while this Webmaster is obviously gifted, he’s not entitled to all the credit. In all fairness, a lot of it needs to go to those wonderful folks who gave us “the mushroom cloud” and other utterances designed to scare us into war. These would surely include Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ms. Rice, and the rest of the Administration’s coterie of imperators.
You may not think what’s on the White House website is important, but you’re wrong. Millions of people visit this oasis of spin and depend on it for reliable information. Like the stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin, mustard and VX nerve agents, and munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Like the
mobile biological weapons labs, the advanced nuclear weapons development program, the design for a nuclear weapon, the enrichment of uranium for a nuclear bomb, the significant quantities of uranium he was trying to buy from Africa, and his high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons. And we shouldn’t ignore Saddam’s protection of terrorists, including al-Qaida members.
In an organization as large as The White House, I suppose that breakdowns in communications are inevitable from time to time. But it’s now time someone told The White House Webmaster that his material is just a tad outdated, superseded by the reports of Dr. Kay, Mr. Duelfer, and the 9/11 Commission.
But all is not lost for the Webmaster. I can’t think of a more deserving recipient of the next Medal of Honor.
It’s a pity that all the Bush Administration cabinet-level posts have been filled, because there is at least one undiscovered candidate: The White House Webmaster.
I discovered his work yesterday while surfing the web. Here’s a sample:
Under the heading “Disarm Saddam Hussein”, the surfer will find this text:
“The gravest danger we face in the war on terror is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
“Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.
“Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N.
“The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:
· 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people
· 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
· 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents
· Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
“From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.
“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities.
“Thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors.
“Iraqi officials accompany all inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N.
“Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN be killed, along with their families.
“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
“The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene next week to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. We will consult. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will act for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world.”
But while this Webmaster is obviously gifted, he’s not entitled to all the credit. In all fairness, a lot of it needs to go to those wonderful folks who gave us “the mushroom cloud” and other utterances designed to scare us into war. These would surely include Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ms. Rice, and the rest of the Administration’s coterie of imperators.
You may not think what’s on the White House website is important, but you’re wrong. Millions of people visit this oasis of spin and depend on it for reliable information. Like the stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin, mustard and VX nerve agents, and munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Like the
mobile biological weapons labs, the advanced nuclear weapons development program, the design for a nuclear weapon, the enrichment of uranium for a nuclear bomb, the significant quantities of uranium he was trying to buy from Africa, and his high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons. And we shouldn’t ignore Saddam’s protection of terrorists, including al-Qaida members.
In an organization as large as The White House, I suppose that breakdowns in communications are inevitable from time to time. But it’s now time someone told The White House Webmaster that his material is just a tad outdated, superseded by the reports of Dr. Kay, Mr. Duelfer, and the 9/11 Commission.
But all is not lost for the Webmaster. I can’t think of a more deserving recipient of the next Medal of Honor.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
THE MORAL HIGH GROUND?
By William Fisher
Here is a sure-fire nomination for the most outrageous quote of the week: “Accusations that we are torturing people tend to be mythology.”
These are the words an un-named Egyptian official questioned by The Washington Post about prisoner abuse.
Here are the facts of the case The Post was enquiring about. The reader can decide who was doing what to whom.
An Egyptian-born Australian citizen, currently a prisoner at the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, charges that the US Government forcibly transferred him to Egypt, where he was tortured for six months. He has petitioned a US Federal Court to block plans to send him back to an Egyptian prison a second time.
Mamdouh Habib alleges that while in Egyptian custody he was hung by his arms from hooks, repeatedly shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten. He contends that under US and international law, he cannot be sent back. The US accuses Habib of training and raising money for al Qaeda, and say he had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Australian media report that in 2001, authorities there cleared him of having terrorist connections.
In a surprise announcement on January 11, the Pentagon said they would release Habib and four remaining British men on the grounds that ''the governments of the United Kingdom (Britain) and Australia have accepted responsibility for these individuals and will work to prevent them from engaging in or otherwise supporting terrorist activities in the future.'' US authorities obviously do not want this case aired in any US court.
But Habib intends to pursue his legal action against the US Government. What Habib is challenging is a highly secret US practice: the outsourcing of torture. The practice is known as ‘rendering’. It involves transferring detainees to countries where there are no de facto restrictions on prisoner abuse. It is used to obtain confessions and “intelligence” under duress, or because there is insufficient evidence to try them in US courts.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen, are high on the list of destinations. And for good reason. Their practices of torture and death in detention have been widely criticized by international and indigenous human rights advocates for many years, and by the US State Department in successive editions of its Annual Report on Human Rights. Because of their close ‘strategic relationship’, Egypt has been a CIA favorite.
According to terrorism expert Peter Bergen, a fellow of the New America Foundation and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, “Egypt routinely tortures political prisoners, untroubled by fears that other Arab leaders will seriously condemn such actions.”
This view is shared by Human Rights Watch. In a briefing paper entitled “Egypt’s Torture Epidemic”, HRW says, “Torture in Egypt is a widespread and persistent phenomenon. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation.”
The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) in Cairo reports that “Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill-treatment have shown a
disturbing rise. Egyptian human rights organizations report at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. There were four deaths in custody during the September-November 2003 period alone.
US Congressional testimony confirms that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) engages in “renditions”. However, the Bush Administration says it always seeks “diplomatic assurances” from foreign governments that they will treat the captives humanely. Advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have found that such assurances are routinely violated.
According to a memorandum filed in US District Court in the District of
Columbia, Habib was arrested in Pakistan in October 2001. He claims that three Americans interrogated him over a period of weeks. He says he was then taken to an airfield where he was beaten by Americans. One cut off his clothes, while another placed a foot on his neck "and posed while another took pictures," the document says.
Court papers allege he was then flown to Egypt, and spent six months in custody. During interrogations, Habib was alleges he was suspended from hooks, with his is feet resting on the side of a large cylindrical drum attached to wires and a battery. "When Mr. Habib did not give the answers his interrogators wanted, they threw a switch and a jolt of electricity" went through the drum, it says. "The action of Mr. Habib 'dancing' on the drum forced it to rotate, and his feet constantly slipped, leaving him suspended by only the hooks on the wall . . . This ingenious cruelty lasted until Mr. Habib finally fainted."
At other times, the petition alleges, he was placed in ankle-deep water that his
interrogators told him "was wired to an electric current, and that unless Mr.
Habib confessed, they would throw the switch and electrocute him." Habib says he gave false confessions to stop the abuse.
The legal authority for “renditions” is based on an Executive Order signed by President Bill Clinton, and reportedly summarized in a 2002 memo entitled "The President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captive Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations." According to The Washington Post, “knowledgeable US officials said White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales participated in its production.”
During Mr. Gonzales’s Senate confirmation hearings on his nomination to be the next Attorney General, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, criticized the Bush Administration for refusing a Congressional request to make the memo public. But an August 2002 Justice Department opinion defines torture narrowly and concludes that the president could legally permit torture in fighting terrorism. The Senate hearings confirmed that Gonzales asked for and helped draft the memorandum.
Shortly before Gonzales’s confirmation hearings began, the Justice Department replaced the 2002 memo after two years on its website as official government policy. The new version follows the provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture, which prohibits torture without exception.
During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Gonzales was asked by Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, if it would be illegal for the US to turn a prisoner over to a country that would torture him. Mr. Gonzales said: "Under my understanding of the law, we have an obligation not to render someone” to a country that we know practices torture. He said “It would be illegal if US officials were involved.”
Only one other court case has challenged “rendering”. It was brought by the Syrian-born Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, who claims he was detained at New York’s Kennedy Airport after arriving from Tunisia enroute to his home in Canada, and shipped off the Syria, where he alleges he was imprisoned and tortured for ten months before being set free without charge. The case is now pending.
In continuing this obscene practice, the US is once again shooting itself in the foot. There are three reasons. First, in a time when the entire world is ‘wired’, it is no longer possible to keep secret operations secret for very long. Second, many old hands at the CIA believe rendering to be a waste of resources; torture consistently yields unreliable confessions. Finally, America likes to believe it occupies the moral high ground in just about everything; there is nothing moral about torture, whether at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or in Cairo or Riyadh, or Sana´a.
Here is a sure-fire nomination for the most outrageous quote of the week: “Accusations that we are torturing people tend to be mythology.”
These are the words an un-named Egyptian official questioned by The Washington Post about prisoner abuse.
Here are the facts of the case The Post was enquiring about. The reader can decide who was doing what to whom.
An Egyptian-born Australian citizen, currently a prisoner at the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, charges that the US Government forcibly transferred him to Egypt, where he was tortured for six months. He has petitioned a US Federal Court to block plans to send him back to an Egyptian prison a second time.
Mamdouh Habib alleges that while in Egyptian custody he was hung by his arms from hooks, repeatedly shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten. He contends that under US and international law, he cannot be sent back. The US accuses Habib of training and raising money for al Qaeda, and say he had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Australian media report that in 2001, authorities there cleared him of having terrorist connections.
In a surprise announcement on January 11, the Pentagon said they would release Habib and four remaining British men on the grounds that ''the governments of the United Kingdom (Britain) and Australia have accepted responsibility for these individuals and will work to prevent them from engaging in or otherwise supporting terrorist activities in the future.'' US authorities obviously do not want this case aired in any US court.
But Habib intends to pursue his legal action against the US Government. What Habib is challenging is a highly secret US practice: the outsourcing of torture. The practice is known as ‘rendering’. It involves transferring detainees to countries where there are no de facto restrictions on prisoner abuse. It is used to obtain confessions and “intelligence” under duress, or because there is insufficient evidence to try them in US courts.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen, are high on the list of destinations. And for good reason. Their practices of torture and death in detention have been widely criticized by international and indigenous human rights advocates for many years, and by the US State Department in successive editions of its Annual Report on Human Rights. Because of their close ‘strategic relationship’, Egypt has been a CIA favorite.
According to terrorism expert Peter Bergen, a fellow of the New America Foundation and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, “Egypt routinely tortures political prisoners, untroubled by fears that other Arab leaders will seriously condemn such actions.”
This view is shared by Human Rights Watch. In a briefing paper entitled “Egypt’s Torture Epidemic”, HRW says, “Torture in Egypt is a widespread and persistent phenomenon. Security forces and the police routinely torture or ill-treat detainees, particularly during interrogation.”
The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) in Cairo reports that “Deaths in custody as a result of torture and ill-treatment have shown a
disturbing rise. Egyptian human rights organizations report at least ten cases in 2002 and seven in 2003. There were four deaths in custody during the September-November 2003 period alone.
US Congressional testimony confirms that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) engages in “renditions”. However, the Bush Administration says it always seeks “diplomatic assurances” from foreign governments that they will treat the captives humanely. Advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have found that such assurances are routinely violated.
According to a memorandum filed in US District Court in the District of
Columbia, Habib was arrested in Pakistan in October 2001. He claims that three Americans interrogated him over a period of weeks. He says he was then taken to an airfield where he was beaten by Americans. One cut off his clothes, while another placed a foot on his neck "and posed while another took pictures," the document says.
Court papers allege he was then flown to Egypt, and spent six months in custody. During interrogations, Habib was alleges he was suspended from hooks, with his is feet resting on the side of a large cylindrical drum attached to wires and a battery. "When Mr. Habib did not give the answers his interrogators wanted, they threw a switch and a jolt of electricity" went through the drum, it says. "The action of Mr. Habib 'dancing' on the drum forced it to rotate, and his feet constantly slipped, leaving him suspended by only the hooks on the wall . . . This ingenious cruelty lasted until Mr. Habib finally fainted."
At other times, the petition alleges, he was placed in ankle-deep water that his
interrogators told him "was wired to an electric current, and that unless Mr.
Habib confessed, they would throw the switch and electrocute him." Habib says he gave false confessions to stop the abuse.
The legal authority for “renditions” is based on an Executive Order signed by President Bill Clinton, and reportedly summarized in a 2002 memo entitled "The President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captive Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations." According to The Washington Post, “knowledgeable US officials said White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales participated in its production.”
During Mr. Gonzales’s Senate confirmation hearings on his nomination to be the next Attorney General, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, criticized the Bush Administration for refusing a Congressional request to make the memo public. But an August 2002 Justice Department opinion defines torture narrowly and concludes that the president could legally permit torture in fighting terrorism. The Senate hearings confirmed that Gonzales asked for and helped draft the memorandum.
Shortly before Gonzales’s confirmation hearings began, the Justice Department replaced the 2002 memo after two years on its website as official government policy. The new version follows the provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture, which prohibits torture without exception.
During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Gonzales was asked by Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, if it would be illegal for the US to turn a prisoner over to a country that would torture him. Mr. Gonzales said: "Under my understanding of the law, we have an obligation not to render someone” to a country that we know practices torture. He said “It would be illegal if US officials were involved.”
Only one other court case has challenged “rendering”. It was brought by the Syrian-born Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, who claims he was detained at New York’s Kennedy Airport after arriving from Tunisia enroute to his home in Canada, and shipped off the Syria, where he alleges he was imprisoned and tortured for ten months before being set free without charge. The case is now pending.
In continuing this obscene practice, the US is once again shooting itself in the foot. There are three reasons. First, in a time when the entire world is ‘wired’, it is no longer possible to keep secret operations secret for very long. Second, many old hands at the CIA believe rendering to be a waste of resources; torture consistently yields unreliable confessions. Finally, America likes to believe it occupies the moral high ground in just about everything; there is nothing moral about torture, whether at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or in Cairo or Riyadh, or Sana´a.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
