By Vicki Gray
And this is the judgment that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
John 3:19-21
I have always been drawn to John’s vision of God as warming, illuminating, loving, life-giving light. It is a theme that runs through Scripture…from the very beginning.
But each time I sought the warmth of that light last week, I found myself sucked into the depressing darkness of evil - the appalling crimes at Abu Ghraib. That depression deepened, as those responsible sought to hide in the darkness “lest [their] deeds should be exposed.”
In the sickeningly pale light of those self-damning photographs from an American torture chamber, I found echoes of other crimes by other people that have rattled around my mind and haunted my conscience for far too long.
In the boarded over windows of the Abu Ghraib cells, I recalled Cell Block 11 at Auschwitz, the basement of which was described as follows by SS Unterscharführer Pery Broad in a Polish book, Auzchwitz In the Eyes of the SS: …one could see in the dim light…that the windows were nearly wholly bricked up, with the exception of a narrow strip not wider than a hand, to get daylight in….Even the cellar windows were heavily barred. Here and there strange looking tin cases were affixed at the level of the cellar windows, and it was hard to guess what purpose they served.
Taking visiting Americans on tours of Auschwitz as American Consul in Krakow 1973-75, I learned that those tin cases were used to pump carbon monoxide from vehicle exhausts into the hermetically-sealed cells where Soviet POWs were killed in early extermination trials.
Later, as consul in Munich 1982-85, I often visited Dachau and came across a book by Wendy von Staden, the wife of the German Ambassador in Washington - a courageous account of growing up near a small concentration camp where prisoners from Dachau were sent to die of starvation and disease. In that book, Darkness Over the Valley, she described in personal terms what Hannah Arendt described as the “banality of evil.” Toward the end, as French troops approached, she and her mother came face-to-face with a work detachment rioting over a kettle of potatoes.
“What kind of people are these anyway?” mother asked [an SS guard], horror-struck. “They’re no longer human beings”….”They are Jews,” replied the guard, “sub-humans. You can see that for yourself.” I was standing next to mother, when suddenly we heard a man’s voice behind us. The voice itself was low and soft, speaking in good clear German, but there was an undertone of almost menacing fury. “It’s you who’ve made us into animals, and you’ll pay for what you’ve done to us.
Later at home Wendy’s mother confronted her father, who had been watching from a window: “Keep out of this,” my father said almost threateningly. “It has nothing to do with us. We can’t do a thing about it.” And then he grabbed his walking stick and went outside. Mother continued to pace, talking as if to herself, “These people are simply starving. That’s it. They’re half-crazed with hunger….That man was right, we’ve made them into beasts, into subhumans. We.”
I remember yet another instance in 1965 of evil in a darkened place – a place called Long Phu. I was a young officer, the junior of two advisors to a Vietnamese unit. The senior advisor, Dale, and I shared a thatched “hootch,” the opposite side of which comprised the “office” of our counterpart, Lieutenant Qui. The wall between was open at the top. One night, as we were dozing off, a dim bulb on the other side clicked on amidst a commotion of shouts and pleas, as a VC prisoner was hauled into the “office.” There were sounds of pistol whippings, the click of an unloaded pistol, and screams of torment. Pushing back the mosquito-netting, I hopped out of bed, and was about to dart around to the other side of the hootch, when Dale barked at me “Go back to sleep. It’s none of our business. That’s the way they do things.” I fell back on the cot in tears and sweat, listening to the screams, watching the shadows on a dimly lit thatched roof…unable to form a prayer.
It was against this flood of awful memories that I tried last week to process the atrocities of Abu Ghraib and the murder of a young American, Nicholas Berg. I’m still trying…and still crying…trying to form a prayer for forgiveness. For it is we who have created – in a gulag stretching from Bagram to Guantanamo - new legions of “sub-humans” who will seek to “make us pay.” But we have already paid. For, in staring at those awful pictures, we are staring at our self-made, self-willed hell.
But, are we, like Wendy’s Germans, condemned to live in an unending hell of collective guilt? If, like Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and O’Reilly, you believe that we have nothing to apologize for or confess to, perhaps. If, like President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, you believe that the ultimate epithet to be tossed at the crimes of Abu Ghraib is “un-American,” perhaps. A people that so believes in its exceptionalism that “God” becomes “America” and “sin” “un-American” deserves a divine slapping around. It is truly surprising that a president who views the world through a neo-Manichean prism of black and white, good and evil, light and darkness, cannot recognize a sin when he sees one.
On the whole, I’m inclined to believe that sin is universal and that we, too, are capable of sinning in the same way and to the same extent as Germans sixty years ago. In this regard, I have learned much from Zygmunt Baumann, a Jewish Polish sociologist who warns, in his Modernity and the Holocaust, against: …focusing on the Germaness of the crime…exonerating everyone else, and particularly everything else. The implication that the perpetrators of the Holocaust were a wound or malady of our civilization – rather than its horrifying, yet legitimate product – results not only in the moral comfort of self-exculpation, but also in the dire threat of moral and political disarmament. It all happened ‘out there’ – in another time, another country. The more ‘they’ are to blame, the more the rest of ‘us’ are safe, and the less we have to do to defend our safety. Once the allocation of guilt is implied to be equivalent to the location of the causes, the innocence and sanity of the way of life we are so proud of need not be cast in doubt.
Well, I’m here to cast doubt on the innocence and sanity of our current American way of life. And, like Hannah Arendt, I agree that it is the individual’s obligation to resist socialization in the face of authority – governmental and/or societal – in which the “social foundations of morality have been cast aside.” I believe, moreover, with Baumann’s hopeful conclusion that: …putting self-preservation above moral duty is in no way pre-determined, inevitable, and inescapable. One can be pressed to do [evil], but one cannot be forced to do it, and thus one cannot really shift the responsibility for doing it on those who exerted the pressure. It does not matter how many people chose moral duty over the rationality of self-preservation – what does matter is that some did. Evil is not all-powerful. It can be resisted. The testimony of the few who did resist shatters the logic of self-preservation. It shows it for what it is in the end – a choice. One wonders how many people must defy that logic for evil to be incapacitated. Is there a magic threshold of defiance beyond which the technology of evil grinds to a halt?
I find hope also in the words of Tahar Ben Jalloun, a Moroccan, who endured horrors similar to those at Abu Ghraib in the darkened underground prisons of King Hassan II. Temporarily blinded, he described his real experience in a searing “novel,” This Blinding Absence of Light. In his “fiction,” he described a light that John would understand:
A sliver of sky must have hovered right above the vent, the indirect opening that let the air in but no light. I sensed the presence of this sky, and filled it with words and images. I shifted the stars around, meddling with them to make room for a little of that light imprisoned in my breast. I felt the radiance. How can one feel light? When an inner brightness caressed my skin and warmed it, I knew that it was visiting me.
The Holy Spirit in a Muslim’s breast…and mine. It warms me too…and gives me hope this spring morning.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Friday, June 10, 2005
Sure there’s Censorship of the News in America
By Grace Reid
This morning Sheila, a Corkwoman, asked me why my eyes looked so tired and my face so strained. I explained that I had been staying up all night writing articles about a story that broke in the UK on the 20th of March, but still hadn’t been reported in the US news by the first week in June. “Sure, there’s censorship of the news in America, isn’t there?” she said. “I mean, everybody knows that there are stories about the war in Iraq that you can’t print in America.” This came as the biggest news of the day to me, that censorship of the news is a state policy. “Can’t you get in trouble with the US government for writing stories like this? Will the FBI be paying us a call?” I told her that I was not too concerned, as the stories came from the BBC and that is about as establishment as you get. All I have been doing, I told her, is finding the news from here and delivering it over there.
Having been out of the country for more than a decade, how could I have known that censorship had become a state policy? How could I have known that the government had shackled and gagged the fourth estate? But I learned fast during the Newsweek Debacle. How did that one go again? Newsweek reported the truth, as had the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty before them. A massive amount of FBI emails released through the FOIA by the ACLU last December told the same story. Yet the US government stepped in and demanded that Newsweek retract, and blamed the press for the ensuing violence for having reported the truth. The Qu’ran was desecrated, but one was not to report it.
The hardest thing to do is to find the truth. And it’s the only worthwhile thing to pursue. During the 2003 State of the Union Address I heard the President of the United States boast that he had summarily executed 3,000 Afghani prisoners. “And let’s put it this way, they will no longer be a problem to us or to our allies.” Then later we learned of the “Convoy of Death.” And how hundreds of these prisoners died in transit in airless containers, and that these containers were shot full of holes, “for the ventilation.” And some of the personnel doing the shooting were American soldiers. And some of the witnesses to these atrocities of war were American soldiers.
Among all the other lies I have heard, that one about allies sticks in my craw as well. I suspect the United States has no allies. A few bought friends. A very few. Looks right now like only one. And all the documents that have been leaked, every single one of them points like a neon arrow back to Washington, back to Crawford. Do you make your friends break the law with you?
There has been a media blackout of the story of the illegal war in Iraq. The truth is coming out against the strongest, and at times, the most peculiar resistance. Now we’ve got minutes, memos transcripts, briefings, and notes. We have briefcases full of doctored “Intelligence that was fixed around the policy” of an illegal war of aggression. A large portion of the informed public has adopted the attitude that this is “old news.” This is, they seem to imply business as usual. Lying to Congress is business as usual. Manipulating the press, manipulating the circumstances to create the conditions for war that was, apparently predetermined in 2001. Manipulating the weapons inspectors, manipulating the Security Council, manipulating the intelligence, manipulating the people. With a rhetoric of God, faith, freedom and democracy for all.
OK, all you “old news” people, would you tell me who is paying for it? Who foot the bill for all the paychecks of all the phony intel, of all the illegal bombings, of all the depleted uranium weapons? Who paid the salaries of the torturers, and the ones who devised the torture policy? Who paid for the illegal CIA ghost flights to secret torture prisons? Who paid the bill to doctor vote tallying software? Who paid for the illegal war that has cost as much as 4 billion US dollars a month? Who is paying the salaries of these thugs? Who is paying for Condoleezza Rice’s SS man’s boots?
And now we’re told to “stay the course”? Now, we accept that the war is illegal, was illegal, but we have to “stay the course?” in a war that is unwinnable. Another war that is unwinnable. Who paid for all this? How can you explain that there are more than 1,600 Americans killed in action of a war that is criminal, except that the one who created and promoted it to the exclusion of all consideration for International Law, that he himself is a criminal. What is the rule in the Military Code of Justice that says you have to obey your commanding officer if that officer is a criminal, and the order violates all known military, international and humanitarian law?
The second most explosive piece of information to come out of the Downing Street Minutes case came from an “unnamed former senior US official” who is quoted as saying the account of the senior British Intelligence officer’s visit to Washington is “an absolutely accurate description of what transpired.” Now there is someone in Washington who is telling the truth. Maybe this will be the beginning of a trend. How long can you carry poisonous lies? It’s enough to make one seriously ill. Or angry enough to tell the truth. To report the truth. That would be a good trend. Then maybe my friend Sheila in Cork will not continue to hold the opinion that censorship is the way the press is operated in America
This morning Sheila, a Corkwoman, asked me why my eyes looked so tired and my face so strained. I explained that I had been staying up all night writing articles about a story that broke in the UK on the 20th of March, but still hadn’t been reported in the US news by the first week in June. “Sure, there’s censorship of the news in America, isn’t there?” she said. “I mean, everybody knows that there are stories about the war in Iraq that you can’t print in America.” This came as the biggest news of the day to me, that censorship of the news is a state policy. “Can’t you get in trouble with the US government for writing stories like this? Will the FBI be paying us a call?” I told her that I was not too concerned, as the stories came from the BBC and that is about as establishment as you get. All I have been doing, I told her, is finding the news from here and delivering it over there.
Having been out of the country for more than a decade, how could I have known that censorship had become a state policy? How could I have known that the government had shackled and gagged the fourth estate? But I learned fast during the Newsweek Debacle. How did that one go again? Newsweek reported the truth, as had the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty before them. A massive amount of FBI emails released through the FOIA by the ACLU last December told the same story. Yet the US government stepped in and demanded that Newsweek retract, and blamed the press for the ensuing violence for having reported the truth. The Qu’ran was desecrated, but one was not to report it.
The hardest thing to do is to find the truth. And it’s the only worthwhile thing to pursue. During the 2003 State of the Union Address I heard the President of the United States boast that he had summarily executed 3,000 Afghani prisoners. “And let’s put it this way, they will no longer be a problem to us or to our allies.” Then later we learned of the “Convoy of Death.” And how hundreds of these prisoners died in transit in airless containers, and that these containers were shot full of holes, “for the ventilation.” And some of the personnel doing the shooting were American soldiers. And some of the witnesses to these atrocities of war were American soldiers.
Among all the other lies I have heard, that one about allies sticks in my craw as well. I suspect the United States has no allies. A few bought friends. A very few. Looks right now like only one. And all the documents that have been leaked, every single one of them points like a neon arrow back to Washington, back to Crawford. Do you make your friends break the law with you?
There has been a media blackout of the story of the illegal war in Iraq. The truth is coming out against the strongest, and at times, the most peculiar resistance. Now we’ve got minutes, memos transcripts, briefings, and notes. We have briefcases full of doctored “Intelligence that was fixed around the policy” of an illegal war of aggression. A large portion of the informed public has adopted the attitude that this is “old news.” This is, they seem to imply business as usual. Lying to Congress is business as usual. Manipulating the press, manipulating the circumstances to create the conditions for war that was, apparently predetermined in 2001. Manipulating the weapons inspectors, manipulating the Security Council, manipulating the intelligence, manipulating the people. With a rhetoric of God, faith, freedom and democracy for all.
OK, all you “old news” people, would you tell me who is paying for it? Who foot the bill for all the paychecks of all the phony intel, of all the illegal bombings, of all the depleted uranium weapons? Who paid the salaries of the torturers, and the ones who devised the torture policy? Who paid for the illegal CIA ghost flights to secret torture prisons? Who paid the bill to doctor vote tallying software? Who paid for the illegal war that has cost as much as 4 billion US dollars a month? Who is paying the salaries of these thugs? Who is paying for Condoleezza Rice’s SS man’s boots?
And now we’re told to “stay the course”? Now, we accept that the war is illegal, was illegal, but we have to “stay the course?” in a war that is unwinnable. Another war that is unwinnable. Who paid for all this? How can you explain that there are more than 1,600 Americans killed in action of a war that is criminal, except that the one who created and promoted it to the exclusion of all consideration for International Law, that he himself is a criminal. What is the rule in the Military Code of Justice that says you have to obey your commanding officer if that officer is a criminal, and the order violates all known military, international and humanitarian law?
The second most explosive piece of information to come out of the Downing Street Minutes case came from an “unnamed former senior US official” who is quoted as saying the account of the senior British Intelligence officer’s visit to Washington is “an absolutely accurate description of what transpired.” Now there is someone in Washington who is telling the truth. Maybe this will be the beginning of a trend. How long can you carry poisonous lies? It’s enough to make one seriously ill. Or angry enough to tell the truth. To report the truth. That would be a good trend. Then maybe my friend Sheila in Cork will not continue to hold the opinion that censorship is the way the press is operated in America
BLOODY SUNDAY AND BEYOND
By William Fisher
The summer of 1965 found the United States in turmoil.
President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who had taken office in 1963 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, was already stepping up troop deployments to Vietnam, and an embryonic anti-war movement was beginning to gain the traction that would ultimately cause Johnson to decline to run for reelection in 1968.
Elsewhere in the nation, however, millions of Americans were not yet focused on Vietnam. Their struggle – begun soon after the Civil War in the 1860s – continued to be to secure equality and justice for African Americans.
The effects of the historic 1954 Supreme Court decision barring school segregation, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing racial discrimination in restaurants, hotels and other public facilities, had yet to be fully felt. And a key factor in the fight for racial equality had yet to be addressed.
Throughout the southern states and in many in the north, African Americans were effectively denied the right to vote. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted almost a century earlier, guaranteed every (male) citizen the right to vote. But the amendment was being routinely circumvented by state-imposed poll taxes, literacy tests, gerrymandering and ‘grandfathering’ – allowing the vote only to persons who had voted earlier, whether or not they were literate, and thus excluding black citizens.
African Americans also risked harassment, intimidation, economic reprisals, and physical violence when they tried to register or vote. As a result, very few African Americans were registered voters, and have virtually no political power, either locally or nationally.
In the sleepy town of Selma, Alabama, the right to vote had led to frequent and often bloody demonstrations. There were angry confrontations between civil rights supporters and the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, usually supported by the police.
Black citizens there were outraged by the killing of a demonstrator by a state trooper in nearby Marion, Alabama, and scheduled a march from Selma to
Montgomery, the state capital, to appeal directly to Governor George C. Wallace to stop police brutality and call attention to their struggle for suffrage.
But when the marchers reached the city line, they found a posse of state troopers waiting for them. As the demonstrators crossed the bridge leading out of Selma, they were ordered to disperse, but the troopers did not wait for their warning to be heeded.
They immediately attacked the crowd of people who had bowed their heads in prayer. Using tear gas and batons, the troopers chased the demonstrators to a black housing project, where they continued to beat the demonstrators as well as residents of the project who had not been at the march.
One of the organizers of the Selma-Montgomery march was John Lewis, who had been a voting rights registration organizer, and one of the young men beaten on the Selma Bridge that Sunday. He currently serves as a U.S. Congressman for the State of Georgia.
The day came to be known as “Bloody Sunday”. Numerous marches were organized in response, and Rev. Martin Luther King led a second march to the Selma Bridge the following Tuesday, during which one protestor was killed.
But it was the death of a white man that gave President Johnson the political juice to call for an end to the violence. On the evening of Bloody Sunday, a group of Selma whites killed a northern white minister who had joined the demonstrations.
In contrast to the killing of a black man, Jimmy Lee Jackson, a few weeks earlier, Reverend James Reeb's death led to a national outcry. The combination of public revulsion to the violence and Johnson's political skills stimulated Congress to act.
As a result of Bloody Sunday, Johnson gave a passionate speech to congress demanding suffrage for black citizens. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act “to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution” the same year. The act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, 95 years after the 15th Amendment was ratified. It outlawed discriminatory voting practices including poll taxes and literacy tests as prerequisites to voting.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had an almost immediate impact by greatly increasing the number of southern blacks able to register to vote. According to a report of the Bureau of the Census from 1982, in 1960 there were 22,000 African-Americans registered to vote in Mississippi, but in 1966 the number had risen to 175,000. Alabama went from 66,000 African-American registered voters in 1960 to 250,000 in 1966. South Carolina's African-American registered voters went from 58,000 to 191,000 in the same period.
By the end of 1965, a quarter of a million new black voters had been registered, one-third by Federal examiners. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the 13 southern states had fewer than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was readopted and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
The Voting Rights Act was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the Federal and state governments in the area of
voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War. So it was not surprising that it was immediately challenged in the courts. Between 1965 and 1969, the Supreme Court issued several key decisions upholding its constitutionality.
But injustices against African Americans have not gone away. The U.S. Senate is currently considering a resolution apologizing for the epidemic of lynching that terrorized black Americans up to the mid-20th century, but Congress has never passed an anti-lynching law, though it is clear it had the necessary votes.
And it has resisted attempts to expand hate crimes statutes. Civil rights commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote recently, “The Congressional inaction on an expanded hate crimes law reinforces the public perception that terrorism comes only in the form of Al-Qaeda attacks, and presumes that sexually and racially motivated violence are isolated acts committed by a handful of quacks and unreconstructed bigots, and that state authorities vigorously report and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes. This is a myth.”
.
The summer of 1965 found the United States in turmoil.
President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who had taken office in 1963 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, was already stepping up troop deployments to Vietnam, and an embryonic anti-war movement was beginning to gain the traction that would ultimately cause Johnson to decline to run for reelection in 1968.
Elsewhere in the nation, however, millions of Americans were not yet focused on Vietnam. Their struggle – begun soon after the Civil War in the 1860s – continued to be to secure equality and justice for African Americans.
The effects of the historic 1954 Supreme Court decision barring school segregation, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing racial discrimination in restaurants, hotels and other public facilities, had yet to be fully felt. And a key factor in the fight for racial equality had yet to be addressed.
Throughout the southern states and in many in the north, African Americans were effectively denied the right to vote. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted almost a century earlier, guaranteed every (male) citizen the right to vote. But the amendment was being routinely circumvented by state-imposed poll taxes, literacy tests, gerrymandering and ‘grandfathering’ – allowing the vote only to persons who had voted earlier, whether or not they were literate, and thus excluding black citizens.
African Americans also risked harassment, intimidation, economic reprisals, and physical violence when they tried to register or vote. As a result, very few African Americans were registered voters, and have virtually no political power, either locally or nationally.
In the sleepy town of Selma, Alabama, the right to vote had led to frequent and often bloody demonstrations. There were angry confrontations between civil rights supporters and the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, usually supported by the police.
Black citizens there were outraged by the killing of a demonstrator by a state trooper in nearby Marion, Alabama, and scheduled a march from Selma to
Montgomery, the state capital, to appeal directly to Governor George C. Wallace to stop police brutality and call attention to their struggle for suffrage.
But when the marchers reached the city line, they found a posse of state troopers waiting for them. As the demonstrators crossed the bridge leading out of Selma, they were ordered to disperse, but the troopers did not wait for their warning to be heeded.
They immediately attacked the crowd of people who had bowed their heads in prayer. Using tear gas and batons, the troopers chased the demonstrators to a black housing project, where they continued to beat the demonstrators as well as residents of the project who had not been at the march.
One of the organizers of the Selma-Montgomery march was John Lewis, who had been a voting rights registration organizer, and one of the young men beaten on the Selma Bridge that Sunday. He currently serves as a U.S. Congressman for the State of Georgia.
The day came to be known as “Bloody Sunday”. Numerous marches were organized in response, and Rev. Martin Luther King led a second march to the Selma Bridge the following Tuesday, during which one protestor was killed.
But it was the death of a white man that gave President Johnson the political juice to call for an end to the violence. On the evening of Bloody Sunday, a group of Selma whites killed a northern white minister who had joined the demonstrations.
In contrast to the killing of a black man, Jimmy Lee Jackson, a few weeks earlier, Reverend James Reeb's death led to a national outcry. The combination of public revulsion to the violence and Johnson's political skills stimulated Congress to act.
As a result of Bloody Sunday, Johnson gave a passionate speech to congress demanding suffrage for black citizens. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act “to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution” the same year. The act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, 95 years after the 15th Amendment was ratified. It outlawed discriminatory voting practices including poll taxes and literacy tests as prerequisites to voting.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had an almost immediate impact by greatly increasing the number of southern blacks able to register to vote. According to a report of the Bureau of the Census from 1982, in 1960 there were 22,000 African-Americans registered to vote in Mississippi, but in 1966 the number had risen to 175,000. Alabama went from 66,000 African-American registered voters in 1960 to 250,000 in 1966. South Carolina's African-American registered voters went from 58,000 to 191,000 in the same period.
By the end of 1965, a quarter of a million new black voters had been registered, one-third by Federal examiners. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the 13 southern states had fewer than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was readopted and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
The Voting Rights Act was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the Federal and state governments in the area of
voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War. So it was not surprising that it was immediately challenged in the courts. Between 1965 and 1969, the Supreme Court issued several key decisions upholding its constitutionality.
But injustices against African Americans have not gone away. The U.S. Senate is currently considering a resolution apologizing for the epidemic of lynching that terrorized black Americans up to the mid-20th century, but Congress has never passed an anti-lynching law, though it is clear it had the necessary votes.
And it has resisted attempts to expand hate crimes statutes. Civil rights commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote recently, “The Congressional inaction on an expanded hate crimes law reinforces the public perception that terrorism comes only in the form of Al-Qaeda attacks, and presumes that sexually and racially motivated violence are isolated acts committed by a handful of quacks and unreconstructed bigots, and that state authorities vigorously report and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes. This is a myth.”
.
Tyrant Be Thy Name, Senator
By Jason Miller
Thankfully, it appears that Bush’s reign will end in just three years, unless he succeeds in shredding the Constitution and becoming America’s first true dictator. Fortunately for the Oligarchy which rules America behind the veil of our severely weakened republic, they have a leader waiting in the wings with more cunning and ruthlessness than "W". Sam Brownback is yearning for his shot at the Oval Office. Living in Kansas, I know the futility of attempting to reason with Senator Sam Brownback. As his constituent, I have corresponded with him on a wide range of issues. His canned responses reflect his close alignment with the Religious Right and the Neocon plutocrats who have a stranglehold on power in America.
Yes, Brownback has set his sights on the White House. On 4/16/05 he officially kicked off his presidential bid by speaking to 150 members of the New Hampshire Cornerstone Research group. He regaled them with discourse on his beliefs concerning the definition of life, marriage, and the church and state relationship. Cornerstone represents Brownback's "base". To get a sense of the nature of his anti-gay, anti-choice base, consider the position of Karen Testerman, the executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research.
In 2003, Testerman told the Associated Press that “gays and lesbians” were comparable to “shoplifters and drug addicts”. In the same year, she told the Concord Monitor of her support for "abstinence only" education. She elaborated by stating that "holding hands is the first step", and "you're not even supposed to do that if you can avoid it."
Portrait of a radical
As one examines various facets of Sam Brownback, one formulates a profile of an individual who is dangerously radical. As I write this article, he is pandering to the Religious Right, his extremist base. Brownback is threatening to filibuster the Senate bill that would relax restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. This legislation would enable the US to begin catching up with nations like South Korea. Yes, you read that correctly. America's cutting edge scientific community has fallen behind South Korea in a critical area of medical research.
According to the Kansas City Star, as he discussed the stem cell bill, Brownback alluded to the Democrats’ use of the filibuster on judicial nominations as he said, "I've learned how to delay and stop things." This bill he is so eager to “delay and stop” has already passed the House. It would give researchers access to more than 400,000 frozen embryos that fertility clinics will discard anyway. Federal funding for research on these embryos holds very strong promise for developing therapies and cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Rather than enhancing the human capacity to cure serious illness, Brownback would rather see the embryos thrown out like garbage. If Brownback is successful with his filibuster, while he gains political traction with the pro-life crowd, 400,000 embryos will be wasted and real human beings will continue to suffer needlessly.
Despite support of the bill from fellow Republicans Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch, who has long been ardently pro-life, Brownback believes the research is "wrong" and used this twisted analogy in a quote to the Kansas City Star:
Why not use death row inmates in some sort of positive way? They are going to be killed. Why not take their body parts, their heart and lungs and eyes, and yet as I say that, doesn't that sound ghoulish? Human life is sacred."
In a further display of his distorted worldview, Brownback had this to say about American voters aged 18 to 25:
"They were born", he said, "when abortion rates were highest, so many of them feel they're the survivors of a holocaust: one in four of their compatriots are not here.''
The cognitive disconnect in that analogy is astounding. Yet at the same time, one can marvel at the propagandistic genius of mobilizing his minions amongst the “pro-life” faithful by equating the “crime of abortion” with the systematic murder of six million innocents.
Need more evidence of his fanaticism?
You remain skeptical that Brownback is closely aligned with the Religious Right, and is a dangerous extremist? Reflect on Brownback crediting Pat Robertson for his election to the Senate in 1996. Contemplate Robertson's recent endorsement of Brownback as a presidential candidate for 2008 on ABC's This Week. This means that one of Brownback’s most prominent supporters for his nascent presidential bid is a pivotal leader of the Religious Right movement. To affirm his radical mindset, Robertson once said:
“I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...(but) I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party....I don’t think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose...”
Still not convinced? Contemplate Brownback's membership in Opus Dei. While they are a Catholic organization, Opus Dei promotes many of the socially conservative values of the Protestant Religious Right. There is also speculation that this highly secretive cult has links to fascist corporations. Opus Dei has a history of supporting fascists. Members of this sect were involved with Franco’s government in Spain. Although Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, was canonized by the Catholic Church, he was a controversial figure. His biographers have characterized him as devious and manipulative. Escriva created Opus Dei on principles of secrecy, power, and an emphasis on finding holiness in one’s work. Opus Dei and Sam Brownback are not the elixirs America’s ruptured ailing needs to nurse it back to health.
Apparently Brownback has an affinity for surreptitious religious organizations. He maintains a residence in Washington DC in a house owned by C Street Center, a sister organization to a loose coalition of Christian government and business leaders known as the Fellowship. The Fellowship is so secretive that many of its members deny its existence. What is known about Brownback's affiliation with this group is that he pays a heavily subsidized rent of $600.00 per month to live in the Fellowship's house, and that he holds weekly religious meetings with the other five Congressmen who share his quarters. Despite its innocuous appearance, there are dark motives beneath the surface of the Fellowship, sometimes known as the Family. Founder Abraham Vereide's held many fascist viewpoints, and infected many of our nation's leaders with his ideologies as the Fellowship grew in popularity over the years.
Here is an excerpt from an Alternet article (http://www.alternet.org/story/16167) about the Family:
In 1935, Abraham Vereide starts it. By the 1940s he has about a third of Congress attending a weekly prayer meeting. In the mid-50s, he gets Eisenhower's support.
[According to a 2002 Los Angeles Times article, during the 1950's Vereide played a major role in the U.S. government's anti-communist activities: "Pentagon officials secretly met at the group's Washington Fellowship House in 1955 to plan a worldwide anti-communism propaganda campaign endorsed by the CIA, documents from the Fellowship archives and the Eisenhower Presidential Library show. Then known as International Christian Leadership, the group financed a film called 'Militant Liberty' that was used by the Pentagon abroad." Showing Faith in Discretion, Lisa Getter, The Los Angeles Times, Sep 27, 2002]
I highly recommend reading the complete article on Alternet, and Jeff Sharlet's Harper's Magazine article at http://www.harpers.org/JesusPlusNothing.html?pg=1. Senator Brownback has aligned himself with a very unsavory organization.
How can we restore something that was never lost?
Perhaps most telling is Senator Brownback's ardent support of the Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004 (which failed) and now its revival in 2005. Were this to become law, the effects on the tattered republic in America would be devastating. This bill represents a culmination of the plan Pat Robertson began outlining on the 700 Club in 1985. Robertson’s vision is for Christian conservatives to secure control of the government. One of his principle strategies to ascend to power is to curtail the powers of the judiciary. In light of the true agenda behind it, a more appropriate name for this legislation would be the Constitutional Reconstruction Act.
At (http://www.prayeralert.org/alertarchives/alert-040204.html) Urgent Prayer Alert high-lights some key components of this frightening piece of legislation:
This CRA (S. 2082 & H.R. 3799) could end 40+ years of religious judicial tyranny (see http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2082is.txt.pdf).
Empowered by Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution this Act will remove from federal court jurisdiction all matters pertaining to the acknowledgement of God, neutralizing the radical agenda to expunge God from American public life.
CRA’s teeth are a provision for the impeachment of judges who overstep their bounds.
CRA reminds the federal courts their jurisdiction is constitutionally limited as is Congress’ jurisdiction. Neither has authority to govern religious expression. The Founders were careful to leave such matters entirely to the states and to the people.
CRA affirms the right of government officials to "acknowledge God as the source of law, liberty and government." It prohibits federal judges from using foreign laws and judgments as the basis for rulings.
His record speaks for itself
Evaluations of Sam Brownback’s voting record in the Senate provide tangible evidence that he is unfit to succeed Bush as a president who would restore a semblance of social justice and civil liberties to America. NARAL, a pro-choice group, rated him at 0%, which of course translates to 100% pro-life voting. The ACLU gave him an abysmal 20% rating on concerning civil liberties. His 27% rating from the NEA indicates that he usually votes against public education. Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants gave Brownback a 25% rating, meaning he rarely votes for criminal rehabilitation. Brownback is ardently pro-military, as evidenced by his 0% rating by SANE. The AFL-CIO gave him an "F" (0%) for his lack of support for labor unions. ALPHA took exception to his consistent disregard for public health and gave him a 0%. The League of Conservation Voters expressed their disenchantment with Brownback's lack of support for the environment by giving him another "F".
Who gave Brownback their seal of approval? For his faithful devotion to business and “family values” (as defined by the Religious Right) both the US Chamber of Commerce and the Christian Coalition gave him 100% ratings. Brownback embodies the social conservative movement’s cruel Social Darwinism. In his priority system the success of corporations and abstract “family values” supersede the spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being of flesh and blood human beings.
Selective compassion
Despite his professed deep concern for the plight of the genocide victims in Darfur, Sudan, Brownback has virtually ignored people experiencing similar fates in other nations. It is no coincidence that Brownback focuses his concern on the Sudanese genocide. In Darfur, Muslims are killing Christians. Non-Christians who suffer are apparently not worthy of the Senator’s attention. Like Bush, Brownback believes in the false construct of the "good Christians" versus the "evil Muslims". Obviously, his compassion is reserved for "true believers".
Where is Brownback’s holy devotion to acts of compassion when in comes to homosexuals in America? Gays are the one minority in America who receive no federal protection of their civil rights, and he aims to keep things that way. He has vigorously supported a federal ban on gay marriage and has voted against including sexual orientation to the federal definition of hate crimes. While voting against legislation that would help protect gays from battery or murder, Brownback expressed grave concerns (http://www.cogforlife.org/schiavobrownback.htm) about Terry Schiavo and others like her. Brownback’s concern for human life is both inconsistent and selective.
Wolf in sheep’s clothing
Low key and laid back, Sam Brownback likes to portray himself as a down to earth, small town “family values” man who can relate to the "average American". While he does hail from the tiny hamlet of Parker, Kansas, he can hardly relate to the plight of the average American. He is married to Mary Stauffer, an heiress to a fortune built on a Topeka-based media fortune. His membership in Opus Dei, a secretive, elitist organization with fewer than 90,000 members further distances him from relating to the "average American".
Mr. Brownback exhibited anti-Semitic tendencies and a propensity to use dirty politics in his 1996 campaign for the Senate. In What's the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank wrote:
"Consider the enlightened Sam Brownback. He may be against slavery--and what a bold stand that is 140 years after the Civil War!--but when faced with a tough challenge in 1996 from Democrat Jill Docking of Wichita, his campaign inundated the state with TV commercials that sought to tarnish her by pointing out that she was raised in the now-hated state of Massachusetts and that before she was married her name wasn't Docking at all (the Dockings are now a famous Kansas family) but Sadowsky. Get it? As though to drive this point home, voters across the state received mysterious phone calls in the week before the Election Day reminding them that 'Docking is a Jew.'"
After defeating his opponent by attacking her state of origin and religious affiliation, Brownback has proceeded to implement his perverse, extreme, and hypocritical agenda through the course of his tenure as US Senator. In 2004, to maintain his position in the Senate, he even accepted $17,000.00 from corporations and individuals profiting from the porn industry (per Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington). He took this money despite having called pornography "the crack cocaine of sexual addiction" and having called pornographers’ products “damaging to our culture, our families, and our nation."
Sam Brownback already wields too much power for a man with such radical views. Within the Senate he serves on the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Joint Economic Committee, and is chairman of both the Helsinki Commission and the Constitution subcommittee. As his constituent, I feel appalled that he represents me in Washington.
As the latest opinion polls show, Americans are slowly awakening to the damage rendered by the Bush administration. More Americans are realizing their perceived walk in the park is actually a slow and steady march toward tyranny and theocracy. While many of the changes they have instituted are still abstract to many Americans (i.e. the Patriot Act), the Plutocrats, Oligarchs, and Theocrats are on the verge of extinguishing our republic. They have already installed the mechanisms to forge a fascist state. Historically, fascism has included the use of propaganda and censorship, strong nationalism, fusion of religion and state, and corporatism. As a Senator, Sam Brownback has worked diligently to implement each of these components in some fashion. Beware, America. If the right to vote in America still exists in 2008, a Brownback victory could signal a comeback for the Brown Shirts.
Thankfully, it appears that Bush’s reign will end in just three years, unless he succeeds in shredding the Constitution and becoming America’s first true dictator. Fortunately for the Oligarchy which rules America behind the veil of our severely weakened republic, they have a leader waiting in the wings with more cunning and ruthlessness than "W". Sam Brownback is yearning for his shot at the Oval Office. Living in Kansas, I know the futility of attempting to reason with Senator Sam Brownback. As his constituent, I have corresponded with him on a wide range of issues. His canned responses reflect his close alignment with the Religious Right and the Neocon plutocrats who have a stranglehold on power in America.
Yes, Brownback has set his sights on the White House. On 4/16/05 he officially kicked off his presidential bid by speaking to 150 members of the New Hampshire Cornerstone Research group. He regaled them with discourse on his beliefs concerning the definition of life, marriage, and the church and state relationship. Cornerstone represents Brownback's "base". To get a sense of the nature of his anti-gay, anti-choice base, consider the position of Karen Testerman, the executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research.
In 2003, Testerman told the Associated Press that “gays and lesbians” were comparable to “shoplifters and drug addicts”. In the same year, she told the Concord Monitor of her support for "abstinence only" education. She elaborated by stating that "holding hands is the first step", and "you're not even supposed to do that if you can avoid it."
Portrait of a radical
As one examines various facets of Sam Brownback, one formulates a profile of an individual who is dangerously radical. As I write this article, he is pandering to the Religious Right, his extremist base. Brownback is threatening to filibuster the Senate bill that would relax restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. This legislation would enable the US to begin catching up with nations like South Korea. Yes, you read that correctly. America's cutting edge scientific community has fallen behind South Korea in a critical area of medical research.
According to the Kansas City Star, as he discussed the stem cell bill, Brownback alluded to the Democrats’ use of the filibuster on judicial nominations as he said, "I've learned how to delay and stop things." This bill he is so eager to “delay and stop” has already passed the House. It would give researchers access to more than 400,000 frozen embryos that fertility clinics will discard anyway. Federal funding for research on these embryos holds very strong promise for developing therapies and cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Rather than enhancing the human capacity to cure serious illness, Brownback would rather see the embryos thrown out like garbage. If Brownback is successful with his filibuster, while he gains political traction with the pro-life crowd, 400,000 embryos will be wasted and real human beings will continue to suffer needlessly.
Despite support of the bill from fellow Republicans Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch, who has long been ardently pro-life, Brownback believes the research is "wrong" and used this twisted analogy in a quote to the Kansas City Star:
Why not use death row inmates in some sort of positive way? They are going to be killed. Why not take their body parts, their heart and lungs and eyes, and yet as I say that, doesn't that sound ghoulish? Human life is sacred."
In a further display of his distorted worldview, Brownback had this to say about American voters aged 18 to 25:
"They were born", he said, "when abortion rates were highest, so many of them feel they're the survivors of a holocaust: one in four of their compatriots are not here.''
The cognitive disconnect in that analogy is astounding. Yet at the same time, one can marvel at the propagandistic genius of mobilizing his minions amongst the “pro-life” faithful by equating the “crime of abortion” with the systematic murder of six million innocents.
Need more evidence of his fanaticism?
You remain skeptical that Brownback is closely aligned with the Religious Right, and is a dangerous extremist? Reflect on Brownback crediting Pat Robertson for his election to the Senate in 1996. Contemplate Robertson's recent endorsement of Brownback as a presidential candidate for 2008 on ABC's This Week. This means that one of Brownback’s most prominent supporters for his nascent presidential bid is a pivotal leader of the Religious Right movement. To affirm his radical mindset, Robertson once said:
“I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...(but) I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party....I don’t think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose...”
Still not convinced? Contemplate Brownback's membership in Opus Dei. While they are a Catholic organization, Opus Dei promotes many of the socially conservative values of the Protestant Religious Right. There is also speculation that this highly secretive cult has links to fascist corporations. Opus Dei has a history of supporting fascists. Members of this sect were involved with Franco’s government in Spain. Although Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, was canonized by the Catholic Church, he was a controversial figure. His biographers have characterized him as devious and manipulative. Escriva created Opus Dei on principles of secrecy, power, and an emphasis on finding holiness in one’s work. Opus Dei and Sam Brownback are not the elixirs America’s ruptured ailing needs to nurse it back to health.
Apparently Brownback has an affinity for surreptitious religious organizations. He maintains a residence in Washington DC in a house owned by C Street Center, a sister organization to a loose coalition of Christian government and business leaders known as the Fellowship. The Fellowship is so secretive that many of its members deny its existence. What is known about Brownback's affiliation with this group is that he pays a heavily subsidized rent of $600.00 per month to live in the Fellowship's house, and that he holds weekly religious meetings with the other five Congressmen who share his quarters. Despite its innocuous appearance, there are dark motives beneath the surface of the Fellowship, sometimes known as the Family. Founder Abraham Vereide's held many fascist viewpoints, and infected many of our nation's leaders with his ideologies as the Fellowship grew in popularity over the years.
Here is an excerpt from an Alternet article (http://www.alternet.org/story/16167) about the Family:
In 1935, Abraham Vereide starts it. By the 1940s he has about a third of Congress attending a weekly prayer meeting. In the mid-50s, he gets Eisenhower's support.
[According to a 2002 Los Angeles Times article, during the 1950's Vereide played a major role in the U.S. government's anti-communist activities: "Pentagon officials secretly met at the group's Washington Fellowship House in 1955 to plan a worldwide anti-communism propaganda campaign endorsed by the CIA, documents from the Fellowship archives and the Eisenhower Presidential Library show. Then known as International Christian Leadership, the group financed a film called 'Militant Liberty' that was used by the Pentagon abroad." Showing Faith in Discretion, Lisa Getter, The Los Angeles Times, Sep 27, 2002]
I highly recommend reading the complete article on Alternet, and Jeff Sharlet's Harper's Magazine article at http://www.harpers.org/JesusPlusNothing.html?pg=1. Senator Brownback has aligned himself with a very unsavory organization.
How can we restore something that was never lost?
Perhaps most telling is Senator Brownback's ardent support of the Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004 (which failed) and now its revival in 2005. Were this to become law, the effects on the tattered republic in America would be devastating. This bill represents a culmination of the plan Pat Robertson began outlining on the 700 Club in 1985. Robertson’s vision is for Christian conservatives to secure control of the government. One of his principle strategies to ascend to power is to curtail the powers of the judiciary. In light of the true agenda behind it, a more appropriate name for this legislation would be the Constitutional Reconstruction Act.
At (http://www.prayeralert.org/alertarchives/alert-040204.html) Urgent Prayer Alert high-lights some key components of this frightening piece of legislation:
This CRA (S. 2082 & H.R. 3799) could end 40+ years of religious judicial tyranny (see http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2082is.txt.pdf).
Empowered by Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution this Act will remove from federal court jurisdiction all matters pertaining to the acknowledgement of God, neutralizing the radical agenda to expunge God from American public life.
CRA’s teeth are a provision for the impeachment of judges who overstep their bounds.
CRA reminds the federal courts their jurisdiction is constitutionally limited as is Congress’ jurisdiction. Neither has authority to govern religious expression. The Founders were careful to leave such matters entirely to the states and to the people.
CRA affirms the right of government officials to "acknowledge God as the source of law, liberty and government." It prohibits federal judges from using foreign laws and judgments as the basis for rulings.
His record speaks for itself
Evaluations of Sam Brownback’s voting record in the Senate provide tangible evidence that he is unfit to succeed Bush as a president who would restore a semblance of social justice and civil liberties to America. NARAL, a pro-choice group, rated him at 0%, which of course translates to 100% pro-life voting. The ACLU gave him an abysmal 20% rating on concerning civil liberties. His 27% rating from the NEA indicates that he usually votes against public education. Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants gave Brownback a 25% rating, meaning he rarely votes for criminal rehabilitation. Brownback is ardently pro-military, as evidenced by his 0% rating by SANE. The AFL-CIO gave him an "F" (0%) for his lack of support for labor unions. ALPHA took exception to his consistent disregard for public health and gave him a 0%. The League of Conservation Voters expressed their disenchantment with Brownback's lack of support for the environment by giving him another "F".
Who gave Brownback their seal of approval? For his faithful devotion to business and “family values” (as defined by the Religious Right) both the US Chamber of Commerce and the Christian Coalition gave him 100% ratings. Brownback embodies the social conservative movement’s cruel Social Darwinism. In his priority system the success of corporations and abstract “family values” supersede the spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being of flesh and blood human beings.
Selective compassion
Despite his professed deep concern for the plight of the genocide victims in Darfur, Sudan, Brownback has virtually ignored people experiencing similar fates in other nations. It is no coincidence that Brownback focuses his concern on the Sudanese genocide. In Darfur, Muslims are killing Christians. Non-Christians who suffer are apparently not worthy of the Senator’s attention. Like Bush, Brownback believes in the false construct of the "good Christians" versus the "evil Muslims". Obviously, his compassion is reserved for "true believers".
Where is Brownback’s holy devotion to acts of compassion when in comes to homosexuals in America? Gays are the one minority in America who receive no federal protection of their civil rights, and he aims to keep things that way. He has vigorously supported a federal ban on gay marriage and has voted against including sexual orientation to the federal definition of hate crimes. While voting against legislation that would help protect gays from battery or murder, Brownback expressed grave concerns (http://www.cogforlife.org/schiavobrownback.htm) about Terry Schiavo and others like her. Brownback’s concern for human life is both inconsistent and selective.
Wolf in sheep’s clothing
Low key and laid back, Sam Brownback likes to portray himself as a down to earth, small town “family values” man who can relate to the "average American". While he does hail from the tiny hamlet of Parker, Kansas, he can hardly relate to the plight of the average American. He is married to Mary Stauffer, an heiress to a fortune built on a Topeka-based media fortune. His membership in Opus Dei, a secretive, elitist organization with fewer than 90,000 members further distances him from relating to the "average American".
Mr. Brownback exhibited anti-Semitic tendencies and a propensity to use dirty politics in his 1996 campaign for the Senate. In What's the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank wrote:
"Consider the enlightened Sam Brownback. He may be against slavery--and what a bold stand that is 140 years after the Civil War!--but when faced with a tough challenge in 1996 from Democrat Jill Docking of Wichita, his campaign inundated the state with TV commercials that sought to tarnish her by pointing out that she was raised in the now-hated state of Massachusetts and that before she was married her name wasn't Docking at all (the Dockings are now a famous Kansas family) but Sadowsky. Get it? As though to drive this point home, voters across the state received mysterious phone calls in the week before the Election Day reminding them that 'Docking is a Jew.'"
After defeating his opponent by attacking her state of origin and religious affiliation, Brownback has proceeded to implement his perverse, extreme, and hypocritical agenda through the course of his tenure as US Senator. In 2004, to maintain his position in the Senate, he even accepted $17,000.00 from corporations and individuals profiting from the porn industry (per Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington). He took this money despite having called pornography "the crack cocaine of sexual addiction" and having called pornographers’ products “damaging to our culture, our families, and our nation."
Sam Brownback already wields too much power for a man with such radical views. Within the Senate he serves on the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Joint Economic Committee, and is chairman of both the Helsinki Commission and the Constitution subcommittee. As his constituent, I feel appalled that he represents me in Washington.
As the latest opinion polls show, Americans are slowly awakening to the damage rendered by the Bush administration. More Americans are realizing their perceived walk in the park is actually a slow and steady march toward tyranny and theocracy. While many of the changes they have instituted are still abstract to many Americans (i.e. the Patriot Act), the Plutocrats, Oligarchs, and Theocrats are on the verge of extinguishing our republic. They have already installed the mechanisms to forge a fascist state. Historically, fascism has included the use of propaganda and censorship, strong nationalism, fusion of religion and state, and corporatism. As a Senator, Sam Brownback has worked diligently to implement each of these components in some fashion. Beware, America. If the right to vote in America still exists in 2008, a Brownback victory could signal a comeback for the Brown Shirts.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Waging Peace for Humanity
Jason Miller is a 38 year old free-lance activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. He is a husband and a father to three boys. He earns his living as an account representative for a finance company. His affiliations include Amnesty International, the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com.
Humanity, meet your oppressor
On 6/3/05, the Bush administration lacked the courage to face its accuser directly. Jim Lehrer of Newshour on PBS moderated a discussion between Amnesty International and the Bush administration. The topic was Amnesty's recent allegations concerning prisoner abuse in the American version of Stalin's Gulag Archipelago. Amnesty sent William Schulz, their executive director in the United States. Lehrer invited the Pentagon to send a representative. Instead, they sent their proxy, Neil Livingston, CEO of Global Options, a security firm with expertise on the subject of terrorism. Competing emotions swelled within me as I watched Schulz and Livingston speak. Elation and anger wrestled violently as they struggled to become my predominant emotion.
With clinical detachment, Livingston gave a typical Neocon justification for the "Gulag of our Times" in Guantanamo Bay and other locations. Taking umbrage to Amnesty's gall in leveling charges of human rights abuses against the morally superior United States; he coolly stated that Guantanamo was not even remotely similar to the Gulags under Stalin. Holding the Neocon line, he denied that there was a problem with the US system of detention in the "war on terror". He stated that the men confined in Cuba were dangerous terrorists, and therefore were not entitled to rights afforded under the Geneva Convention. He admitted that there were some abuses, but minimized them, stating that they were rare and minor. Livingston further justified the American Gulag with the fact that we are at "war" and cannot risk freeing these prisoners until the "war" is over.
My joy and hope surged as Schulz cast a very different light on the situation. He reminded viewers that the US military has committed 27 homicides throughout its network of prisons, including Guantanamo. Schulz exposed the fact that prisoners in the US Gulag system are not confirmed terrorists because they have had no access to an objective tribunal to rule on their culpability. He also spoke of the "ghost detainees" who have disappeared, the US practice of transferring prisoners to nations which condone torture, and the fact that most of the prisoners in the "war on terror" have been held without formal charges for over two years.
Pointing out that the US is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, he defended Amnesty's report condemning US human rights abuses. He also addressed Irene Kahn's characterization of Guantanamo as the "Gulag of our Times". Explaining that while it was not a direct analogy, Shulz affirmed that there are many similarities between Stalin's Gulag Archipelago, and the terrorist prison network of the US. As Schulz declared, Irene Khan, the London-based director of Amnesty International, is a native of Bangladesh. Khan and Amnesty represent the viewpoints of the international community, and their condemnation of the war crimes of the US government is not a politically-motivated attack. Schulz conveyed that Amnesty applies the "gold standard" of respect for human rights to each nation which it investigates. According to Schulz, the vehement denials of wrongdoing by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld closely resembled those of countries such as Iran and North Korea, members of Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil".
What gives Amnesty International the credentials to challenge almighty America?
Amnesty International came to be in 1961 as a result of a year long media campaign initiated by Peter Benenson, a British attorney. He sparked a year long publicity campaign by The Observer, a British newspaper. The effort influenced people to launch protests against the detention of prisoners of conscience. From these humble beginnings, Amnesty has grown to a world-wide organization with more than a million members. Acting on bedrock principles of independence and impartiality, the group now champions the rights of prisoners of social conscience, people facing torture and the death penalty, and individuals who have "disappeared" for political reasons. Amnesty won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 and in 1978 received a United Nations Human Rights Award. Over the years, they have achieved a sterling reputation as an activist organization shining the light of humanity on the ugly violations of individual human rights throughout the world.
In Irene Khan's own words:
“Human rights violations are not committed against the ‘other side’ but against a mother, a sister, a brother, a son,”
“Our challenge is to [stand] in solidarity with the victims, to know their names, their faces, their identities, their stories.”
“No cause can justify the abuse of human rights.”
Listen to them tap dance....and "flip flop"
Meanwhile, the Bush administration has responded to Amnesty’s allegations with vehement and terse denials. In light of Amnesty's credibility and the body of evidence against them, their words ring quite hollow.
Dick Cheney:
For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.
Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary and spin-master:
I think the allegations are ridiculous and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity.
George W. Bush:
"When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation."
"It seemed like [Amnesty] based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people who had been trained in some instances to disassemble - that means not tell the truth,"
"And so it was an absurd report. It just is."
Holding true to form, when the White House needed Amnesty to promote the war in Iraq in 2003, they offered a much different opinion on Amnesty and their findings concerning human rights abuses.
Before Amnesty leveled their charges against the US administration, Donald Rumsfeld had this to say:
We know that it’s a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…
AND
…It seems to me a careful reading of Amnesty International or the record of Saddam Hussein, having used chemical weapons on his own people as well as his neighbors, and the viciousness of that regime, which is well known and documented by human rights organizations, ought not to be surprised.
The simple fact is that Amnesty International has an established reputation as an independent watchdog of human rights around the world. They have not exhibited a pattern of targeting specific countries to further a political agenda. Rumsfeld's statements provide evidence that the Bush administration recognized Amnesty's authority on the matter of human rights abuse when it suited their purposes. Now that Amnesty has trained their cross-hairs on them, they are lashing out like cornered animals. America's leaders deride or attempt to discredit virtually every organization or individual that has the audacity to challenge them. Smells like tyranny to me.
In 1974 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (a man who knew a bit about tyranny, Stalin and the Gulag Archipelago) might as well have been talking about the Bush administration when he said:
Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.
Fear lies beneath their ire
Bush and his cohorts are sweating. Amnesty has them in an angry, defensive mode because they are afraid. Why do they fear? They know the allegations are true. They also recognize that even the leaders of the mighty United States are subject to international law. The international court of public opinion has already found them guilty, which does not bode well for the Neocons. Gandhi’s perpetuation of a large civil disobedience movement in colonial India swayed world opinion to the degree that the British finally relented and left India a sovereign nation. The Bush regime comprehends that the movement against their corrupt abuses of power is gaining momentum both domestically and abroad, and they are feeling the heat.
As Joseph Kay and Barry Grey asserted so well at (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/amne-m28.shtml):
"The statements made by Amnesty International are, in fact, only mild expressions of the deep-seated feelings of hundreds of millions of people around the world, including many millions within the United States. The position taken by the US media in response to Amnesty’s charges will only further discredit an institution that already stands condemned in the eyes of the world. The US media is waist deep in blood, filth and lies. It has been instrumental in promoting and defending the policies of the most reactionary government in American history and is irreversibly implicated in its crimes."
Amnesty leveled specific and credible charges against the administration in this open letter to George Bush (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510782004)
on 5/7/04. They went even further with recent statements by William Schulz:
''If the U.S. government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior U.S. officials involved in the torture scandal,''
''If those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them,''
''The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.”
Between Amnesty International exerting international pressure, the ACLU applying domestic legal pressure, and Representative John Conyers pushing for Congressional action based on the Downing Street Memo, the Bush regime has its hands full. Their fear is masked by anger as they continue to lash out at their detractors, but they are beginning to look and sound flustered.
The Cost of American Conquest
While Amnesty commented that the Gulag analogy is not direct, there are distinct parallels between Stalin's infamous "Gulag Archipelago" and the American Gulags. The American system of confinement for detainees in the seemingly boundless and endless "war on terror" consists of an "archipelago" of at least 24 keeps, some of which are clandestine. According to Human Rights First (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/statements/abu-yr-042605.htm), at least 108 prisoners have died in US Gulags, including 63 outside of Abu Gharib. They also validate through a CIA source that at least 100 "ghost detainees" exist, meaning the administration keeps them from the "prying eyes" of the monitors of the International Red Cross. The US now detains 11,000 prisoners in the American Gulag and, until recent rulings by the American judiciary, has given them no opportunity to prove their innocence. Torture, disappearances, murder, secrecy, and paucity of justice..... Sounds like a track record that would fill Joseph Stalin with pride!
Bush and his fellow Neocons are avaricious, power-mad, and short-sighted. They lack the spiritual vision to realize that they are grossly abusing the awesome power they wield. Consumed by self-absorption and a compulsion to continue the morally repugnant policy of Manifest Destiny, they fail to realize that America's ways are not superior to the ways of the rest of the world. Sadly, America’s rulers believe they are justified in using invasion, occupation and torture to impose "democracy, capitalism and Christianity" on other nations, just as their predecessors did with Native Americans. Amnesty International has given them a painful reminder of their immoral, illegal acts, and of the limitations of their power. They also reminded the Neocons that the world does not share their zeal for American "democracy". As evidenced by its response, America’s elite ruling class is most displeased.
All "good" things must come to an end
With the fictitious carte blanche moral authority that they derive from their cleverly contrived "war on terror", the Bush administration has acted with impunity far too long. Amnesty International has taken a bold stance against their despotism. They have shed a glaring light into the shadows, exposing the dark deeds of America's leaders. Undoubtedly, repulsion ripples through the bodies of decent human beings as they discover the injustices and human rights violations taking place in the American Gulag Archipelago
Now is the time for people of conscience to stand with Amnesty International in their support of human rights. Opposition to the Bush administration is strong in America, but needs to become stronger. I recently joined Amnesty International and fully support their bold charges against the Bush administration. Despite the fact that much malevolence emanates from America, there are many Americans who want no part of the Bush government, the true source of the malice. Humanity around the globe is vulnerable to the ruthless ambitions of the powerful nexus of plutocrats and corporations that comprise the American Oligarchy. They possess the potency of immense wealth and an unparalleled military arsenal, but are spiritually bankrupt. Therefore, the answer does not lie in other nations waging war against the US, or in American dissidents perpetrating acts of violence. Protests; education of our children, ourselves, and the uninformed; shining the light of truth into the shadows in which the Oligarchs lurk; verbal and written dissidence; moral and financial support of organizations like Amnesty International; acts of civil disobedience; boycotting the products of the administration's corrupt corporate allies; legal pressure and prosecution; and the impeachment process are the weapons we can use as we wage peace against the Oligarchs of the United States of America. As citizens of Earth, we share a common blight on our existence, and Washington DC is its epicenter. Waging peace will put this abomination in its place.
Humanity, meet your oppressor
On 6/3/05, the Bush administration lacked the courage to face its accuser directly. Jim Lehrer of Newshour on PBS moderated a discussion between Amnesty International and the Bush administration. The topic was Amnesty's recent allegations concerning prisoner abuse in the American version of Stalin's Gulag Archipelago. Amnesty sent William Schulz, their executive director in the United States. Lehrer invited the Pentagon to send a representative. Instead, they sent their proxy, Neil Livingston, CEO of Global Options, a security firm with expertise on the subject of terrorism. Competing emotions swelled within me as I watched Schulz and Livingston speak. Elation and anger wrestled violently as they struggled to become my predominant emotion.
With clinical detachment, Livingston gave a typical Neocon justification for the "Gulag of our Times" in Guantanamo Bay and other locations. Taking umbrage to Amnesty's gall in leveling charges of human rights abuses against the morally superior United States; he coolly stated that Guantanamo was not even remotely similar to the Gulags under Stalin. Holding the Neocon line, he denied that there was a problem with the US system of detention in the "war on terror". He stated that the men confined in Cuba were dangerous terrorists, and therefore were not entitled to rights afforded under the Geneva Convention. He admitted that there were some abuses, but minimized them, stating that they were rare and minor. Livingston further justified the American Gulag with the fact that we are at "war" and cannot risk freeing these prisoners until the "war" is over.
My joy and hope surged as Schulz cast a very different light on the situation. He reminded viewers that the US military has committed 27 homicides throughout its network of prisons, including Guantanamo. Schulz exposed the fact that prisoners in the US Gulag system are not confirmed terrorists because they have had no access to an objective tribunal to rule on their culpability. He also spoke of the "ghost detainees" who have disappeared, the US practice of transferring prisoners to nations which condone torture, and the fact that most of the prisoners in the "war on terror" have been held without formal charges for over two years.
Pointing out that the US is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, he defended Amnesty's report condemning US human rights abuses. He also addressed Irene Kahn's characterization of Guantanamo as the "Gulag of our Times". Explaining that while it was not a direct analogy, Shulz affirmed that there are many similarities between Stalin's Gulag Archipelago, and the terrorist prison network of the US. As Schulz declared, Irene Khan, the London-based director of Amnesty International, is a native of Bangladesh. Khan and Amnesty represent the viewpoints of the international community, and their condemnation of the war crimes of the US government is not a politically-motivated attack. Schulz conveyed that Amnesty applies the "gold standard" of respect for human rights to each nation which it investigates. According to Schulz, the vehement denials of wrongdoing by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld closely resembled those of countries such as Iran and North Korea, members of Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil".
What gives Amnesty International the credentials to challenge almighty America?
Amnesty International came to be in 1961 as a result of a year long media campaign initiated by Peter Benenson, a British attorney. He sparked a year long publicity campaign by The Observer, a British newspaper. The effort influenced people to launch protests against the detention of prisoners of conscience. From these humble beginnings, Amnesty has grown to a world-wide organization with more than a million members. Acting on bedrock principles of independence and impartiality, the group now champions the rights of prisoners of social conscience, people facing torture and the death penalty, and individuals who have "disappeared" for political reasons. Amnesty won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 and in 1978 received a United Nations Human Rights Award. Over the years, they have achieved a sterling reputation as an activist organization shining the light of humanity on the ugly violations of individual human rights throughout the world.
In Irene Khan's own words:
“Human rights violations are not committed against the ‘other side’ but against a mother, a sister, a brother, a son,”
“Our challenge is to [stand] in solidarity with the victims, to know their names, their faces, their identities, their stories.”
“No cause can justify the abuse of human rights.”
Listen to them tap dance....and "flip flop"
Meanwhile, the Bush administration has responded to Amnesty’s allegations with vehement and terse denials. In light of Amnesty's credibility and the body of evidence against them, their words ring quite hollow.
Dick Cheney:
For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.
Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary and spin-master:
I think the allegations are ridiculous and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity.
George W. Bush:
"When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation."
"It seemed like [Amnesty] based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people who had been trained in some instances to disassemble - that means not tell the truth,"
"And so it was an absurd report. It just is."
Holding true to form, when the White House needed Amnesty to promote the war in Iraq in 2003, they offered a much different opinion on Amnesty and their findings concerning human rights abuses.
Before Amnesty leveled their charges against the US administration, Donald Rumsfeld had this to say:
We know that it’s a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…
AND
…It seems to me a careful reading of Amnesty International or the record of Saddam Hussein, having used chemical weapons on his own people as well as his neighbors, and the viciousness of that regime, which is well known and documented by human rights organizations, ought not to be surprised.
The simple fact is that Amnesty International has an established reputation as an independent watchdog of human rights around the world. They have not exhibited a pattern of targeting specific countries to further a political agenda. Rumsfeld's statements provide evidence that the Bush administration recognized Amnesty's authority on the matter of human rights abuse when it suited their purposes. Now that Amnesty has trained their cross-hairs on them, they are lashing out like cornered animals. America's leaders deride or attempt to discredit virtually every organization or individual that has the audacity to challenge them. Smells like tyranny to me.
In 1974 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (a man who knew a bit about tyranny, Stalin and the Gulag Archipelago) might as well have been talking about the Bush administration when he said:
Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.
Fear lies beneath their ire
Bush and his cohorts are sweating. Amnesty has them in an angry, defensive mode because they are afraid. Why do they fear? They know the allegations are true. They also recognize that even the leaders of the mighty United States are subject to international law. The international court of public opinion has already found them guilty, which does not bode well for the Neocons. Gandhi’s perpetuation of a large civil disobedience movement in colonial India swayed world opinion to the degree that the British finally relented and left India a sovereign nation. The Bush regime comprehends that the movement against their corrupt abuses of power is gaining momentum both domestically and abroad, and they are feeling the heat.
As Joseph Kay and Barry Grey asserted so well at (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/amne-m28.shtml):
"The statements made by Amnesty International are, in fact, only mild expressions of the deep-seated feelings of hundreds of millions of people around the world, including many millions within the United States. The position taken by the US media in response to Amnesty’s charges will only further discredit an institution that already stands condemned in the eyes of the world. The US media is waist deep in blood, filth and lies. It has been instrumental in promoting and defending the policies of the most reactionary government in American history and is irreversibly implicated in its crimes."
Amnesty leveled specific and credible charges against the administration in this open letter to George Bush (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510782004)
on 5/7/04. They went even further with recent statements by William Schulz:
''If the U.S. government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior U.S. officials involved in the torture scandal,''
''If those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them,''
''The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.”
Between Amnesty International exerting international pressure, the ACLU applying domestic legal pressure, and Representative John Conyers pushing for Congressional action based on the Downing Street Memo, the Bush regime has its hands full. Their fear is masked by anger as they continue to lash out at their detractors, but they are beginning to look and sound flustered.
The Cost of American Conquest
While Amnesty commented that the Gulag analogy is not direct, there are distinct parallels between Stalin's infamous "Gulag Archipelago" and the American Gulags. The American system of confinement for detainees in the seemingly boundless and endless "war on terror" consists of an "archipelago" of at least 24 keeps, some of which are clandestine. According to Human Rights First (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/statements/abu-yr-042605.htm), at least 108 prisoners have died in US Gulags, including 63 outside of Abu Gharib. They also validate through a CIA source that at least 100 "ghost detainees" exist, meaning the administration keeps them from the "prying eyes" of the monitors of the International Red Cross. The US now detains 11,000 prisoners in the American Gulag and, until recent rulings by the American judiciary, has given them no opportunity to prove their innocence. Torture, disappearances, murder, secrecy, and paucity of justice..... Sounds like a track record that would fill Joseph Stalin with pride!
Bush and his fellow Neocons are avaricious, power-mad, and short-sighted. They lack the spiritual vision to realize that they are grossly abusing the awesome power they wield. Consumed by self-absorption and a compulsion to continue the morally repugnant policy of Manifest Destiny, they fail to realize that America's ways are not superior to the ways of the rest of the world. Sadly, America’s rulers believe they are justified in using invasion, occupation and torture to impose "democracy, capitalism and Christianity" on other nations, just as their predecessors did with Native Americans. Amnesty International has given them a painful reminder of their immoral, illegal acts, and of the limitations of their power. They also reminded the Neocons that the world does not share their zeal for American "democracy". As evidenced by its response, America’s elite ruling class is most displeased.
All "good" things must come to an end
With the fictitious carte blanche moral authority that they derive from their cleverly contrived "war on terror", the Bush administration has acted with impunity far too long. Amnesty International has taken a bold stance against their despotism. They have shed a glaring light into the shadows, exposing the dark deeds of America's leaders. Undoubtedly, repulsion ripples through the bodies of decent human beings as they discover the injustices and human rights violations taking place in the American Gulag Archipelago
Now is the time for people of conscience to stand with Amnesty International in their support of human rights. Opposition to the Bush administration is strong in America, but needs to become stronger. I recently joined Amnesty International and fully support their bold charges against the Bush administration. Despite the fact that much malevolence emanates from America, there are many Americans who want no part of the Bush government, the true source of the malice. Humanity around the globe is vulnerable to the ruthless ambitions of the powerful nexus of plutocrats and corporations that comprise the American Oligarchy. They possess the potency of immense wealth and an unparalleled military arsenal, but are spiritually bankrupt. Therefore, the answer does not lie in other nations waging war against the US, or in American dissidents perpetrating acts of violence. Protests; education of our children, ourselves, and the uninformed; shining the light of truth into the shadows in which the Oligarchs lurk; verbal and written dissidence; moral and financial support of organizations like Amnesty International; acts of civil disobedience; boycotting the products of the administration's corrupt corporate allies; legal pressure and prosecution; and the impeachment process are the weapons we can use as we wage peace against the Oligarchs of the United States of America. As citizens of Earth, we share a common blight on our existence, and Washington DC is its epicenter. Waging peace will put this abomination in its place.
Monday, June 06, 2005
FIXING ALHURRA: SOME SMALL STEPS
John Brown, author of the article below, is a former US Foreign Service Officer who resigned his post at the State Department to protest the invasion of Iraq. He is now a research associate at the Georgetown University Center for Public Diplomacy.
By John Brown
Alhurra, the U.S. government-funded satellite television facility that airs its product to the Middle East, hasn't caught on. Kicked off with much fanfare on Valentine's Day, 2004, the $100-million-plus station (the name of which means "The Free One" in Arabic) has been met with more disdain than acceptance in the Arab world. But abandoning it altogether is not an option at this point. What is urgent is determining how to fix it.
In theory, there is hope for Alhurra. Formally "independent" as part of the Middle East Television Network, Inc., a non-profit corporation that receives U.S. government dollars, it can provide an objective window on America -- and its foreign policy -- not to be found in biased, anti-American local media. (There are over 100 TV stations in the Middle East). The station can provide a nuanced expression of the interest Americans have toward Arab lands in an effort to establish a dialogue. It could also stimulate audiences to find out more about the United States in all its complexity.
Alhurra's strategy, however, does not jibe with these objectives. Its focus has been to win audience share in perceived Middle East "media wars" by aiming for slick commercial television -- by trying, if you will, to out-Al-Jazzera Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite broadcaster that is by far the most popular in the area and the one that has been compared to Fox News.
Privately, Alhurra staff boasts about the attractiveness of its female news presenters as one of its strong points. This attempt at public relations slickness, after more than a year, hasn't worked, this despite the fact that the Broadcasting Board of Governors (http://www.bbg.gov/), the independent U.S. agency that oversees the station, has used scientific audience surveys to demonstrate its putative impact.
Judging from the Arab and other media, Alhurra is in fact widely considered dull U.S. propaganda, unsubtle American imperialism in electronic form, which does little to stir audience interest in the United States. Indeed, it causes the opposite reaction, with viewers complaining about the pro-American tilt and cultural insensitivity -- all of which can muddy the reputation of the United States even more than Al-Jazeera.
Fixing Alhurra is a huge undertaking. Its purpose needs complete rethinking, including consideration of the extent to which the U.S. government should be involved in television broadcasting in the first place. The value of "winning" audience share -- rather than informing opinion makers -- should be reexamined. How "local" as contrasted with "regional" Alhurra programs should be also needs to be debated. And the question arises: Shouldn't scarce resources go to supporting local independent media (through, for example, grants and training programs), rather than for expensive broadcasting facilities based in the United States?
These questions may have no conclusive answers. Nonetheless, at this stage in Alhurra's evolution certain matters appear obvious. Given the limited nature of its funding ($100 million is really not that great a sum in international broadcasting), and its links with the U.S. government (despite a BBG "firewall" protecting its independence), there are a few things Alhurra should not attempt. This is so because it can never do them professionally -- unless its budget is greatly increased and its connections with the U.S. government are totally broken. These unrealistic programs that should not be undertaken are:
Providing up-to-the-minute local news at the scene of events, which Alhurra's dedicated but overstretched field staff simply cannot do because of financial and other restraints;
Airing expensive "entertainment" shows; and
Being on the air twenty-four hours a day.
Abandoning Alhurra altogether at this stage, it must be noted at this point, is not a viable short-term option. Shutting it down would be interpreted by the Arab world as an admission that the United States is unable to communicate. Further, millions thus far have been invested in the station.
With the fact that it cannot or should not be shut down, here are some thoughts on how to fix Alhurra, how it could better inform the Arab world in a way suited to America's interests:
Focus on C-Span-type programming relevant to Middle East audiences. To be sure, such "unexciting" programming would not be as audience-grabbing as, for example, the scandal-mongering local show aired on Iraq's U.S.-funded al-Iraqiya channel, "Terrorists in the Hands of Justice." (This program is criticized for violating the Geneva Conventions). With more low-key, unfiltered information programs, however, Alhurra would be seen as a reliable and objective outlet -- especially in times of crisis -- about what the U.S. government really thinks and does. Alhurra's live continuous coverage of the Congressional Hearings regarding the Abu Ghraib photos is a fine example of this.
Air in-depth documentaries on serious, relevant issues produced by local filmmakers. A priority theme should be the historical links between the United States and Arab countries. Such documentaries are all too few; funds should be made available to produce them.
Create an effective website. Alhurra's current site at http://www.Alhurra.com/ consists of only one page, an almost offensively simple listing of its programs in English and Arabic. Given the increased importance of the Internet in the Middle East, especially among young people, the site should be far more detailed and user-friendly, providing up-to-the-minute news and links. It should be interactive, with streaming video and audio. It should contain an archive, always a valuable resource for scholars and researchers.
Establish a legal mechanism that would allow Alhurra to be seen more widely in the United States, making it possible for interested laypersons and specialists to view its programs easily and thus be better able to critique it constructively. The spirit of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 that prohibits, with certain exceptions, the dissemination in the United States of U.S. Government-provided information intended for overseas audiences must be preserved. Nonetheless, there should be a better way to inform Americans -- including Arab-Americans, who could provide valuable feedback on Alhurra's programs -- about what their government is doing in the field of information in the Middle East.
These small steps, while not a magic bullet for Alhurra's problems, would earn it greater respect among the increasingly important educated "chattering class" in the Middle East, importantly including younger people interested in policy and ideas.
By John Brown
Alhurra, the U.S. government-funded satellite television facility that airs its product to the Middle East, hasn't caught on. Kicked off with much fanfare on Valentine's Day, 2004, the $100-million-plus station (the name of which means "The Free One" in Arabic) has been met with more disdain than acceptance in the Arab world. But abandoning it altogether is not an option at this point. What is urgent is determining how to fix it.
In theory, there is hope for Alhurra. Formally "independent" as part of the Middle East Television Network, Inc., a non-profit corporation that receives U.S. government dollars, it can provide an objective window on America -- and its foreign policy -- not to be found in biased, anti-American local media. (There are over 100 TV stations in the Middle East). The station can provide a nuanced expression of the interest Americans have toward Arab lands in an effort to establish a dialogue. It could also stimulate audiences to find out more about the United States in all its complexity.
Alhurra's strategy, however, does not jibe with these objectives. Its focus has been to win audience share in perceived Middle East "media wars" by aiming for slick commercial television -- by trying, if you will, to out-Al-Jazzera Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite broadcaster that is by far the most popular in the area and the one that has been compared to Fox News.
Privately, Alhurra staff boasts about the attractiveness of its female news presenters as one of its strong points. This attempt at public relations slickness, after more than a year, hasn't worked, this despite the fact that the Broadcasting Board of Governors (http://www.bbg.gov/), the independent U.S. agency that oversees the station, has used scientific audience surveys to demonstrate its putative impact.
Judging from the Arab and other media, Alhurra is in fact widely considered dull U.S. propaganda, unsubtle American imperialism in electronic form, which does little to stir audience interest in the United States. Indeed, it causes the opposite reaction, with viewers complaining about the pro-American tilt and cultural insensitivity -- all of which can muddy the reputation of the United States even more than Al-Jazeera.
Fixing Alhurra is a huge undertaking. Its purpose needs complete rethinking, including consideration of the extent to which the U.S. government should be involved in television broadcasting in the first place. The value of "winning" audience share -- rather than informing opinion makers -- should be reexamined. How "local" as contrasted with "regional" Alhurra programs should be also needs to be debated. And the question arises: Shouldn't scarce resources go to supporting local independent media (through, for example, grants and training programs), rather than for expensive broadcasting facilities based in the United States?
These questions may have no conclusive answers. Nonetheless, at this stage in Alhurra's evolution certain matters appear obvious. Given the limited nature of its funding ($100 million is really not that great a sum in international broadcasting), and its links with the U.S. government (despite a BBG "firewall" protecting its independence), there are a few things Alhurra should not attempt. This is so because it can never do them professionally -- unless its budget is greatly increased and its connections with the U.S. government are totally broken. These unrealistic programs that should not be undertaken are:
Providing up-to-the-minute local news at the scene of events, which Alhurra's dedicated but overstretched field staff simply cannot do because of financial and other restraints;
Airing expensive "entertainment" shows; and
Being on the air twenty-four hours a day.
Abandoning Alhurra altogether at this stage, it must be noted at this point, is not a viable short-term option. Shutting it down would be interpreted by the Arab world as an admission that the United States is unable to communicate. Further, millions thus far have been invested in the station.
With the fact that it cannot or should not be shut down, here are some thoughts on how to fix Alhurra, how it could better inform the Arab world in a way suited to America's interests:
Focus on C-Span-type programming relevant to Middle East audiences. To be sure, such "unexciting" programming would not be as audience-grabbing as, for example, the scandal-mongering local show aired on Iraq's U.S.-funded al-Iraqiya channel, "Terrorists in the Hands of Justice." (This program is criticized for violating the Geneva Conventions). With more low-key, unfiltered information programs, however, Alhurra would be seen as a reliable and objective outlet -- especially in times of crisis -- about what the U.S. government really thinks and does. Alhurra's live continuous coverage of the Congressional Hearings regarding the Abu Ghraib photos is a fine example of this.
Air in-depth documentaries on serious, relevant issues produced by local filmmakers. A priority theme should be the historical links between the United States and Arab countries. Such documentaries are all too few; funds should be made available to produce them.
Create an effective website. Alhurra's current site at http://www.Alhurra.com/ consists of only one page, an almost offensively simple listing of its programs in English and Arabic. Given the increased importance of the Internet in the Middle East, especially among young people, the site should be far more detailed and user-friendly, providing up-to-the-minute news and links. It should be interactive, with streaming video and audio. It should contain an archive, always a valuable resource for scholars and researchers.
Establish a legal mechanism that would allow Alhurra to be seen more widely in the United States, making it possible for interested laypersons and specialists to view its programs easily and thus be better able to critique it constructively. The spirit of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 that prohibits, with certain exceptions, the dissemination in the United States of U.S. Government-provided information intended for overseas audiences must be preserved. Nonetheless, there should be a better way to inform Americans -- including Arab-Americans, who could provide valuable feedback on Alhurra's programs -- about what their government is doing in the field of information in the Middle East.
These small steps, while not a magic bullet for Alhurra's problems, would earn it greater respect among the increasingly important educated "chattering class" in the Middle East, importantly including younger people interested in policy and ideas.
GULAG, SHMOOLAG
By William Fisher
When Amnesty International described U.S. anti-terrorist prisons as “the Gulag of our time”, it gave the Bush Administration the ideal gift for the politician who has nothing: An opportunity to change the subject.
Its over-the-top and historically dubious language allowed the president, the vice-president, the secretary of defense and many other Bushies to get everyone focused on syntax and away from the prisoner abuse issue.
This is the second goodie the administration has received of late. A couple of weeks ago, the unwitting donor was Newsweek, which had to retract its story about Koran desecration about to turn up in a government report. Press secretary Scott McClellan and others pounced on poor old Newsweek and inferred that their reporting caused riots in the Middle East and cost lives.
But that didn’t last nearly long enough. Last week – surprise, surprise – Newsweek was vindicated by, yes, a government report confirming that there were indeed Koran abuses at Guantanamo Bay.
Not that there was a single fact in the Amnesty report that was new. The same shameful abuses of detainees have been documented and denounced ad nauseam by human rights groups for the past several years. This vast left-wing conspiracy included the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the American Civil Liberties Union, and many others.
The Pentagon has carried out investigation after investigation, and most of them grudgingly acknowledged that abuses there indeed had been, including deaths in detention and ‘rendition’ of prisoners to countries that would torture them.
But this, the Administration has steadfastly maintained, was the work of ‘a few bad apples’ – low level GIs. No wonder the White House is so paranoid about Senator Joe Biden’s legislation to create an independent 9/11-type commission to investigate prisoner mistreatment. It would climb to wherever in the chain of command the facts took it.
Perish the thought! The very idea that there might just be some tenuous connection between how we treat prisoners and the memos of Judge Bybee and Attorney General Gonzales, and the president’s denial of Geneva Convention protections to the ‘enemy combatants’ at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram, to say nothing of the ‘disappeared’ ghost prisoners the CIA has yet to account for, is to think the unthinkable!
Even the Supreme Court – those ‘activist judges’ again – is disregarded. It’s been a long while now since the nine wise men and women ruled that detainees were entitled to fair trials. In response, the Pentagon designed a Byzantine process virtually guaranteed to see that no one gets a fair trial.
I know that because the JAG officers assigned to defend the detainees are suing the President, charging that the rules imposed for military commissions would deny these prisoners even the most fundamental due process.
By the way, when the history of this sorry episode is written, those JAG folks are likely to emerge as arguably the only real heroes in this grisly dance of death. Their necks are literally on the chopping block.
But not to worry. We won’t have to talk about any of this neocon theater for a while. A spirited debate about syntax is what we all need, and it has a lot more legs than the Newsweek gaff.
Merry Christmas, Mr. President.
When Amnesty International described U.S. anti-terrorist prisons as “the Gulag of our time”, it gave the Bush Administration the ideal gift for the politician who has nothing: An opportunity to change the subject.
Its over-the-top and historically dubious language allowed the president, the vice-president, the secretary of defense and many other Bushies to get everyone focused on syntax and away from the prisoner abuse issue.
This is the second goodie the administration has received of late. A couple of weeks ago, the unwitting donor was Newsweek, which had to retract its story about Koran desecration about to turn up in a government report. Press secretary Scott McClellan and others pounced on poor old Newsweek and inferred that their reporting caused riots in the Middle East and cost lives.
But that didn’t last nearly long enough. Last week – surprise, surprise – Newsweek was vindicated by, yes, a government report confirming that there were indeed Koran abuses at Guantanamo Bay.
Not that there was a single fact in the Amnesty report that was new. The same shameful abuses of detainees have been documented and denounced ad nauseam by human rights groups for the past several years. This vast left-wing conspiracy included the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the American Civil Liberties Union, and many others.
The Pentagon has carried out investigation after investigation, and most of them grudgingly acknowledged that abuses there indeed had been, including deaths in detention and ‘rendition’ of prisoners to countries that would torture them.
But this, the Administration has steadfastly maintained, was the work of ‘a few bad apples’ – low level GIs. No wonder the White House is so paranoid about Senator Joe Biden’s legislation to create an independent 9/11-type commission to investigate prisoner mistreatment. It would climb to wherever in the chain of command the facts took it.
Perish the thought! The very idea that there might just be some tenuous connection between how we treat prisoners and the memos of Judge Bybee and Attorney General Gonzales, and the president’s denial of Geneva Convention protections to the ‘enemy combatants’ at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram, to say nothing of the ‘disappeared’ ghost prisoners the CIA has yet to account for, is to think the unthinkable!
Even the Supreme Court – those ‘activist judges’ again – is disregarded. It’s been a long while now since the nine wise men and women ruled that detainees were entitled to fair trials. In response, the Pentagon designed a Byzantine process virtually guaranteed to see that no one gets a fair trial.
I know that because the JAG officers assigned to defend the detainees are suing the President, charging that the rules imposed for military commissions would deny these prisoners even the most fundamental due process.
By the way, when the history of this sorry episode is written, those JAG folks are likely to emerge as arguably the only real heroes in this grisly dance of death. Their necks are literally on the chopping block.
But not to worry. We won’t have to talk about any of this neocon theater for a while. A spirited debate about syntax is what we all need, and it has a lot more legs than the Newsweek gaff.
Merry Christmas, Mr. President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
