100 Days

The first one hundred days of a Presidency has become one of the earliest measurements of how well a new President is doing in office. The tradition comes from the amazing first one hundred days of the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency when he introduced a dizzying set of legislative proposals that laid the foundation for his fight against the Depression and ushered in a New Deal for both the Presidency and the nation. One hundred days has become shorthand for "...is he doing anything? How is he doing? Does he know what he is doing? Does he have any idea? Do we have hope?...etc." It is an artificial and arbitrary measurement for which scholars are totally mixed in their opinions as to whether what happens in these first hundred days sets the agenda for the rest of a Presidential term. Be that as it may, you will hear nothing but talk from radio and TV about the first one hundred days of the Obama Administration and those doing the opining will divine, from the first hundred days tea leaves, everything from the future of the economic health of this nation to the success the U.S. will have in Iraq and Afghanistan and how history will judge Obama in his tenure. These are some pretty powerful leaves if I say so myself. So, being the sheep and lemming that I am, I will wade into the leaves and attempt to assess how well our President is doing and the implications for the future of our nation and the world. I also invite you to add your thoughts to this unscientific and totally subjective measurement, so that together we can get a sense where this nation is headed under this new administration. In every resume guide, job advice column or during employment counseling, prospective employees are told that first impressions matter a great deal. So what kind of first impression do we get of the President from one hundred days of performance? The best way to answer that is from the President's own mouth. At a nationally televised press conference, the President was asked why he had not commented quickly when he heard about the bonuses AIG was paying some of it's executives after receiving federal bailout money. The President responded "...I like to know what I am talking about before I speak." How refreshing to have a President who doesn't say "...bring 'em on" or "...we will get them dead or alive". Or how about "Mission Accomplished"? The impression that this President presents so far is that of a man who thought about what he wished to do as President and is doing it. He did not expect the economic meltdown left to him by his predecessor to be as deep and serious as it is; but he clearly has a plan and is sticking to it. He gives the impression of optimism and that he really believes he can turn things around; and despite the horrible economy, he never wanders far from his three central goals of reforming the health care system, reducing dependency on foreign oil, and fixing the education problems this nation faces. He gives the impression that adults are again in charge, and the children have been sent to bed. First impressions are important, but ultimately substance is what we are looking for from this man. There are three areas of substance to examine and from which to draw initial conclusions: domestic policy, foreign policy, and relations with Congress(without which you cannot accomplish much in the above mentioned policy areas). The President has set out an ambitious domestic policy agenda. He says he has a plan to restore the financial system to health, create millions of new jobs(many of them from emerging "green" industries), and keep as many Americans in their homes as possible. He also wants to fund an education system that prepares our children for the challenges of a new technological era and reinvent a health care system in which Americans pay more for health care than any other people on earth, but get half the benefits. In the first one hundred days, the President has been focused almost exclusively on the economy. He has proposed a huge fiscal stimulus package. He has given hundreds of billions of dollars to the financial sector. He has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to states and local governments for infrastructure projects which will create thousands of new jobs. He is proposing new regulations and expanded oversight of banks, brokerage houses, and hedge funds; and he has appointed an aggressive new head of the SEC. His critics on the Progressive side accuse him of timidity, not going far enough, limited vision, and being ideologically kidnapped by the likes of economic advisors Lawrence Summers and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke. I don't know if any of his plans will work. Will massive deficits lead to runaway inflation? Will the money get in place fast enough to create new jobs soon? Will he be able to get banks lending again? Will all this focus on the economy derail his ambitious plans about health care, energy and education? The one clear image this President presents is that he is focused and sticking to his plan; and he believes it will work. What is also clear is that his loyal opposition has literally no idea or plan at all. The Republicans issued a 13 page budget proposal that was laughed out of town. They have been reduced to carping on the sidelines about deficits and big government and increased taxes. They have all been given a memory potion from Harry Potter that has made them forget that they presided over eight years of government growth, foreign adventurism , and an explosion of debt unequaled by any Democratic plan in history. Many of us would like to see the President declare "...the era of unregulated, free market capitalism is over"; but he does not seem ready to blow it all up and start again. He might get there one day, but not yet. The first one hundred days on the foreign policy front are an equally mixed message, but with some very positive signs and one serious negative policy so far. The President has ordered the closing of Guantanamo Prison within a year. He has announced that most American troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. He has signed an executive order prohibiting the CIA from using torture as an interrogation technique. He sent a video message to Iran indicating his willingness to talk with that regime; while telling Israel that they no longer can do anything they wish to the Palestinians and be ignored by the White House. He has signaled a change in our policy toward Cuba, shook Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's hand and was received as a rock star on his first European tour. However, the President has committed himself to escalating the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and escalating the violence associated with that conflict. Without a definition of victory nor an exit strategy, the President has committed the U.S. to a war that cannot be "won" and has made the same mistake his predecessors have made. He has not asked the American people whether they want this or not. He is making the same mistakes made in Vietnam and Iraq by engaging in in war without first getting the people behind his concept. He has not explained that the Taliban are not "outsiders" like Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but rather is composed of mainly members of the Pashtun tribe, which is the majority in Afghanistan. He has not explained the role Pakistan plays in this war; and he has not explained how he will achieve victory or even what victory looks like. Just this week the Pakistani government made a deal with he Taliban allowing them to impose "Sharia" law in the Swat Valley in return for a peace treaty. The result has he Taliban calling for the end of secular courts in the whole nation and the establishment of an Islamic Fundamentalist government. The President's decision to increase American troops in Afghanistan could come back to haunt him and us. It is the only decision of his first hundred days that could derail his international popularity and his domestic agenda. In his first one hundred days in office President Obama has instilled confidence in the middle of a disaster. He appears calm and upbeat at a time when Americans need hope and don't need a Cassandra declaring that the sky is falling. He appears to know where he wants the nation to go and how to get there. He has called for this to be a bipartisan effort, but so far that call has been ignored; which brings us to his last grade on how well he is getting along with Congress. In these first days the President has taken unprecedented steps to seek out Republican input and ideas. He has invited the GOP leadership to meetings in the White House, backyard barbeques, and even a Super Bowl Party. He has not engaged in overheated partisan rhetoric despite being at the receiving end of a great deal of rancor and criticism. Republicans refused to support his economic rescue package or his budget. The titular head of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, publicly hopes Obama will fail. Without any counter proposals, the Republicans are left with only one role, obstructionists. They will use the filibuster in the Senate to stop legislation and their policy approach will be anything but what Obama wants. Democrats will oppose Obama on some things; but he has to hold them together on his key pieces of legislation. He held them together for votes on his stimulus package and budget. Whether they fracture and end up stopping him as they did with Carter and Clinton remains to be seen. The first one hundred days finds Obama's approval rating at 70% in a new ABC poll; with most Americans thinking he is on the right track and has a plan. He has restored some of America's reputation and signaled a new beginning between the U.S. and it's allies and enemies. He could make a tragic mistake with Afghanistan; but overall most Americans see a clear difference between him and George Bush and they like what they see. What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

In Our Name

From the first time I took a civics or government class, I have been told that this democracy is a republic. We don't get to directly vote on issues, but rather "We" select representatives to act on our behalf. The government is acting in our stead. The reality is that in the eyes of the world "We" invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. "We" abandoned key missile treaties and "We" encouraged elections in the Palestinian territories and then ignored the results because "We" didn't like who was elected. In the world's eyes "We" tortured prisoners in violation of our own laws and international laws too. How do you feel about these acts being done in your name? The latest revelations on "torture-gate"(I had to say it) just keep getting worse and range from incompetence to ideological immorality. The New York Times reports that the architects of the new torture rules (have you noticed how the corporate media scrupulously calls it "enhanced interrogation techniques" rather than torture?) including the head of the CIA, George Tenet, had no idea that the techniques they were adopting had been used on Americans by the Chinese to torture false confessions out of them. They had no idea that the United States put Japanese military officials on trial for war crimes because they engaged in water boarding. The psychiatrist who had been the moving force behind the use of these new techniques had never conducted an interrogation himself; and the CIA and the Bush Administration ignored memos from knowledgeable rank and file officers telling them that these techniques could backfire, and actually hurt attempts to gather information from key suspects. The Justice Department point man, John Yoo, in the Office of Legal Council, according to the Times, was ideologically committed to promulgating a view that the President, as Commander in Chief, could violate the law, ignore Congress, and violate international agreements because he is acting to protect the nation "at war" with the terrorists. Yoo, a disciple of Vice President Cheney, was appalled at how the Presidency had been weakened since Watergate; and he was building new legal opinions that would rebuild a strong and dominant executive branch. In opinions that Yoo is alleged to have written, he suggested that the President could order the military into the streets of American cities and carry out arrests for various offenses including the exercise of free speech (in violation of posse comitatus laws, not to mention the Constitution), and could order torture to be carried out in violation of both American and international law. Yoo wasn't interested in the effectiveness of the techniques or their history. He was only interested in building an ideological case for a President as war time dictator. Documents released by the Obama administration and the Senate Armed Services Committee show that Condoleeza Rice lied when she claimed no involvement in the torture regulations. She lied when she claimed the United States doesn't engage in torture. The Senate report claims she gave verbal approval of the new rules in 2002. The Armed Services Committee Report also goes on to state that there was a direct relationship between the promulgation of these torture techniques and the abuses that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The report shows that Bush Administration claims that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were carried out by "...a few bad apples" was totally false. What happened in that prison was a direct result of these rule changes adopted by the CIA with the approval of the President and his administration. In the case of one prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, the Times reports that lower level CIA officials had argued that they had gotten all they could out of him, and these new torture techniques would not accomplish anything. They were ignored and he was tortured. The scene was so horrific that veteran interrogators had to leave the area so as not to hear the screams nor see what was being done to this man. Remember, this was all being done in your name. This man was being tortured for you. George Tenet and John Yoo were working on your behalf and with your permission. The actual torturers were acting honorably in the highest tradition of service to their country, to you. Yet, not one tape exists of even one of these honorable interrogations. Why not? If all of this was necessary and effective and honorable, why destroy all the evidence of what was done? The more we learn about what happened and the process that produced these new torture methods, the less honor there is to go around. Where was Congress during all of this? Who was watching the watchers? Why didn't they step in and say no, stop, this isn't going to happen? Where were the Democrats and Republicans who represent you, to stand up for the rule of law? It turns out they did nothing. The Bush Administration claims that the Congressional leadership was thoroughly briefed about all the new torture rules. They claim that the heads of the intelligence committees and the ranking minority members were informed about what was going on. As of today, there is no evidence that even one of them raised any questions or voiced any opposition when briefed. They were prohibited from talking to their staffs or any other member of Congress about what they learned. They were prohibited from seeking out experts in torture and interrogation to get opinions as to the efficacy and advisability of using torture. The system is set up so that actions taken by the executive branch which raise some of the most profound moral and legal questions, and require a check from the legislative branch, are the very acts that are protected from congressional scrutiny. The evidence also appears clear that those members of Congress who knew what was happening, did nothing to stop it perhaps out of fear of being labeled "soft"on terrorists and terrorism. The cavalier manner and slipshod way that these torture rules were implemented is beyond shocking. It is criminal and immoral. We are told that everyone was expecting another attack. We are told that everyone thought there was a ticking bomb. We are told that it's easy to second guess now, but that times were different then. In other words, the end justifies the means. However, neither Vice President Cheney nor former CIA director Michael Hayden can point to a single attack that was stopped or imminent plans disrupted through the use of torture. More importantly, they cannot say that whatever information was acquired could not have been obtained using techniques that were legal and moral and would not have involved torture. President Obama says that no CIA officer who acted in good faith, in light of these legal opinions, will be prosecuted. He says he will leave it up to his Attorney General, Eric Holder, to determine whether to prosecute John Yoo and the other lawyers in the Office of the White House Counsel for the opinions they wrote. Members of Congress are pressing the White House to create a commission similar to the one that investigated the September 11th attacks to investigate torture done in your name. The President has refused so far, and says Congressional investigators could get too partisan and divide this country. Could it be true that Republicans favor torture, secrecy, and a dictator president; while Democrats oppose the very same things? I do not believe that for a minute. If we say this is torture, but we won't investigate or prosecute the torturers; what difference is there between the United States and numerous banana republics around the world? These policies did not just have ramifications and implications in this country. The Senate Armed Services Committee report shows a direct connection between the torture approved by then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the use of the same torture at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, in secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, and in Iraq, particularly Abu Ghraib. This went from the top down. It wasn't a few "bad apples"; it was the whole tree and it went from the President to the troops in the field. Recently, I heard a former CIA operative say that if another September 11th attack occurred, CIA officers might refuse a direct Presidential order to torture to get information. He said this controversy will cause them to second guess and refuse out of fear of being prosecuted here or in other parts of the world...Good! What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Arrangements

Talk of marriage is in the air lately. New York Governor David Patterson introduced legislation to legalize gay marriage. In every major Christian denomination, the question of who can marry and who can't is being debated heatedly. Some lawmakers in the South have proposed a new form of marriage that would be designed to make it harder to get a divorce; and studies show that the percentage of couples living together without benefit of marriage is rising. So it was of interest to me to see an item in Newsweek written by someone of Indian extraction(the nation, not Native American) about how arranged marriages were more stable, less prone to divorce, and preferable to the standard practice in most "Western" nations. The moment I read "arranged marriage", my mind began to spin. Images of Jane Austin, the Middle Ages, and dowries danced in my head. Being able to "arrange" a marriage evokes a time past when women were chattel with no rights, just a piece of property to be handed from one owner to the next. No, absolutely not, we will never take a step backward and reduce women to a business transaction again. It might be acceptable in a backward, chauvinistic, fundamentalist nation like India, but never in a modern future-looking female friendly country like ours. The whole idea is ludicrous, isn't it? We believe in choice. We support individuals coming together in love, committing to a future together. We believe that this is not something that can be "arranged". We believe that there is a special magic and special scheme out there for everyone, don't we? Would any of us trust our parents to pick us a mate? Thank God we have evolved, moved forward, and have abandoned such silly notions. We do this mating dance so much better than they do. Our young people are taught from the age of puberty on that marriage is an ideal to strive for. They are constantly reminded about that dream day when you walk down the aisle in your Vera Wang dress, surrounded by flowers and candles, attended to by bridesmaids and ushers. You invite hundreds of friends; and after the sacred ceremony retire to a hall or ballroom to eat, drink, and be merry. Who could forget such blessed moments as Star Jones' wedding with a carriage, footman, and all the trappings that go with a million dollar wedding; or Princess Di walking down the aisle with a train that stretched for miles? Those were beautiful, romantic, artistic beginnings to a life of marital bliss. Magazines, books, newspapers, television, and movies tell us to search for that one true love. Love is why we marry. Love is forever. Love will bring us together. (I have been trying to work the Captain and Tenniel into a conversation for a long time.) We fall in love, search for love, pine for the love of our life, dream of that love coming along and sweeping us off our feet. We flock to movies like Knotting Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral, An Affair to Remember, Sleepless in Seattle, and You've Got Mail because they speak to our belief and desire to find that one elusive person who will fulfill our lives, make us complete, who we can ride off into the sunset with, and grow old together with into our twilight years. We are a nation of movers and shakers. We are on the cutting edge of all the new technologies, and the way we search out a partner is equally systematic. We have establishments where people gather to converse, mingle, watch, and look. We call them bars. At these "bars", we drink beverages with cute romantic names like "Sex on the Beach" or the "Screaming Orgasm". We get loose and feeling good, and then we "hit" on each other and maybe even go home together; another match made in heaven. During certain seasons, like spring, we go to resorts and bake in the sun, drink quaint concoctions like a "Suicide" or "Kamikaze" and "hook up" knowing that the love of our life is just around the next round. We have "love" cruises and entire companies set up to help us play and meet so that we can begin a life of stable, tranquil happiness. With the advent of the computer, we can join e-Harmony, Facebook, or we can Tweet each other or sign up for match.com. If that is too slow or cumbersome, we can try "Speed Daddy" and meet 25 possible future spouses in less than an hour. If all else fails, if none of this works, if you haven't found someone at work or the local watering hole; you can always use the sure fire, can't miss approach...the blind date. We, the enlightened West, know that eventually one of these methods will work; and we get married and live happily ever after. Don't we? Well, the divorce rate in our nation is said to be over 50%. This must be because those people met in a bar, online, or at spring break. If they had met in church or through a church group, and believed in God; then their marriage would last, be blessed with children, and be the model of stability and longevity. Maybe, but the states with the highest divorce rates, except for Nevada, are all below the buckle of the Bible Belt. It does not appear that reading the Bible literally helps very much in keeping a marriage together. In the Newsweek piece the author noted that arranged marriages have a lower rate of divorce. He pointed out that they don't marry because they are in love; but rather marry and grow into being in love. Since parents are involved in the arrangement, they have a vested interest in seeing it work. They help the couple economically (money worries and disputes being one of the top causes of divorce). They can provide care for children when the couple is stressed to the max. They, and other family members, represent a form of peer pressure to settle disputes, and not let them get out of hand. They are an informal network of marriage counselors and "shoulders to cry on" on occasion. I spoke to a friend recently who comes from the "gypsy" culture in this country. Their roots go back to Eastern Europe, but they are entirely Americanized now. Yet marriages are still "arranged" for many members of the community. It is not mandated; and some choose to go their own way and find their own partners. He told me that the "arranged" marriages rarely end in divorce; but that the marriages of those who choose their own partners seem to end with the same frequency as those in the society around them. So should we all find someone to arrange a partner for us and live happily ever after? Should we abandon the ideal of romantic love for the pragmatic practice of having someone picked for us? No, I am not arguing for that; but I am saying we need to ask if there is anything about an "arranged" marriage that might help us understand what we truly want in a partner and how to make it a success. How we meet someone and what we know about them and their family could be keys to a successful relationship. Parents know the other family. They may work together or socialize together. They know if there are shared values and desires. Perhaps that is what eHarmony is trying to duplicate with their 300 question survey, etc. How many couples marry only to discover that the other person shares few if any of their values? We are a mobile society. The extended family has vanished for most of us. We don't have uncles, aunts, and cousins to act as a safety valve, counseling service, childcare provider, etc. Most of us are a nuclear family at best. So how in todays society do we find substitutes for what the family used to and sometimes still does provide? Should we find substitutes? An arranged marriage still sounds very wrong to me...it smacks of another time and place. It brings up memories of a male dominated society with women as property. It is a non-starter. However, if it is true that divorce is less and relationships more stable; is there anything we can learn from that system? What do you want for your children? A stable, happy, long-lasting relationship or a series of short-termed encounters that can be traumatic and less than happy? Marriage is not for everyone, but if it is for you; how will you do it the best? What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Unions

I belong to a union. Because I belong to a union, I will get a pension when I turn 65; and I know how much I will receive. My pension is defined and is not at the mercy of free market forces which have devastated 401K plans across this nation. Because I belong to a union, I will have medical benefits when I turn 65 and will not be totally dependent on Medicare. My benefits do not exist because of the generosity of my employers. My employers fought every provision proposed by the union that would benefit me. However, my union negotiated deal after deal which required my employer to pay into a health and welfare fund that benefitted those who went before me and will benefit those who come after me. Marx thought that the economic gap between the capitalists and the workers would widen to a point where the poor working class would revolt against the rich capitalists and overthrow the system. One of the things that Marx did not anticipate is the rise of trade unions. Unions in this country forced the rich industrialists to share some of their profits. Union members suffered political defeats, ruthless tactics, and even death in order to organize and win for American workers everything from the eight hour day to laws guaranteeing a safe work place. For most of the second half of the 20th century, the upper classes of this nation have fought a sustained war of attrition with the labor movement. When Ronald Reagan busted PATCO, the air traffic controllers union, it signaled the beginning of the end for working class Americans in their struggle to get an equal share of the economic pie. Since that time, the gap between the classes has widened, wages have stagnated, health care costs have skyrocketed, and union membership has plummeted. Around 7% of Americans are members of unions today. It is no accident that as union membership declined, the political influence of labor waned. It's no accident that as the labor movement weakened, jobs were outsourced out of this nation with little if any thought as to the plight of the working person left behind. Warren Buffet is quoted as saying that "there has been a class war going on in this country and my class is winning." The victory he is referring to is in no small manner a result of the wage war against working people and unions that has been going on for the last fifty years. Among other weapons used by the rich and powerful against working Americans has been employing union busting law firms to break the backs of unions and bring in non-union workers. One of their most effective tactics is to make organizing as difficult as possible. Through the use of threats, disinformation, thuggery, and physical violence; American business was able to stop and reverse the growth of unions. American business poured money into the coffers of the Republican Party and were rewarded with legislation and executive orders that made it harder to organize and harder to punish businesses engaging in illegal union busting actions. If FDR opened the door to a strong labor movement through the National Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Board; the Republicans countered with "Right to Work" laws, striker replacement legislation, and packing the Board with pro-business anti-labor commissioners. You can directly track the erosion of buying power and standard of living for working Americans with the erosion of the labor movement. Do you honestly believe that American corporations would be allowed to renege on pensions and medical benefits promised to retired workers if the labor movement had not been decimated? Do you honestly believe that United Airlines would walk into bankruptcy court and abrogate the promise they made to retired workers, some of whom had put over thirty years into the company, if first the unions hadn't been castrated and neutered? To this day I don't understand how anyone with a conscience could patronize United Airlines after they jettisoned retired workers pensions and medical care, while still paying high salaries to the executives running the company. There is a battle raging right now in the halls of Congress to reverse this trend. This could be the last battle and both sides know what is at stake. The rich and powerful capitalist class sees a chance to crush the labor movement once and for all; and the unions see a chance to rebuild and return influence to working Americans. According to "The Nation" magazine, very few Americans even know this is happening; which means this is a battle that will be won by whatever side organizes better and brings political pressure to bear. You aren't going to find much coverage in the "corporate" media because they are at the forefront of breaking the very unions representing their workers. This is a battle designed for the alternative media and the internet; not CNN, NBC, or CBS. So calling all cars, all hands on deck, ollie ollie oxenfree, y'all come, general quarters, it's time for you to get involved. It's time for the same grassroots so crucial to the rise of Barack Obama to rise up now and throw their weight around again. It's time to let every Democrat in Congress know that there is no pass, no equivocating, no gray area. It's time to let them know that no Democrat can claim to be a friend of working Americans who does not support making it easier for workers who wish to join or form a union to do so. The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). It has been introduced in the House and the Senate. It would make it easier for workers to form unions and then gain the power to negotiate with companies over everything from wages to medical care to retraining programs for older workers. The opposition is backed by the usual suspects like WalMart, the US Chamber of Commerce et al; and some not so usual suspects including people like Warren Buffet, who was a big supporter of President Obama. What should send you screaming into the streets is the campaign of opposition carried out by corporations receiving your taxpayer bailout money including Bank of America and the infamous A.I.G. Too many times I am told to stop bitching and propose solutions. OK, here goes. EFCA would increase the power of working Americans. EFCA would mean workers could force WalMart and corporate America to share more of their profit and improve conditions under which Americans work. EFCA would enable unions to fight harder for funds to retrain laid off workers. EFCA would organize workers, making them a more potent political force, allowing unions to counter the financial advantage corporate America currently enjoys in the halls of Washington. It's time to call, fax, send email or snail mail; but contact every Democratic House and Senate member and tell them to vote for EFCA. It's time to inundate the White House with demands that the President throw his support behind this. Believe me, the other side is doing this in spades. This is our window of opportunity. Your children deserve to join a workforce in which they can influence their own fate. You can help them. Will you? What do you think? I welcome you comment and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

PLEASE NOTE: A COMMENTS LINK HAS BEEN

ADDED BELOW EACH POST!!!

COMMENTS THAT ARE MERELY DEROGATORY OR PERSONALLY INSULTING MAY BE DELETED AS PER REQUEST OF THE LION. ALSO PLEASE NOTE YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE LION EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS OR SO .

THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING,

YOURS TRULY, ED the IT guy

Accountability

One of the most powerful movies I watched as a kid was the Judgement at Nuremburg. Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, Maximilian Schell and Burt Lancaster were among he stars. Lancaster played a judge who had presided over show trials in which people were condemned to the death camps. He was prosecuted for his acts and criticized for allowing the law to be used as a political vehicle to rid the society of unwanted elements. One of the phrases that was condemned over and over in both the movie and in the real Nuremburg trials was the claim that "...I was just following orders." After Nuremburg, the claim that one was ordered to commit a horrible or immoral or illegal act became a non-starter. In fact, the court established the rule that a soldier or government official had a duty, a moral obligation, to disobey orders if what they were told to do was immoral or a war crime or illegal. They had a duty to disobey or be held accountable. The United States prosecuted German war criminals and executed some of them. We did the same thing to members of the Japanese High Command for war crimes involving mass murder, rape, the Bataan Death March and others. When Sergeant William Cally tried to claim he was just following orders when he destroyed the village of Mei Lai, that defense was rejected. An Ohio man, John Demjanjuk is facing deportation because he was a death camp guard who escaped to this country 60 years ago. This government argued that there was no statute of limitations on crimes like his and he had to be punished. A court in Spain found General Augusto Pinochet guilty of war crimes in Chile and sais not even the leader of a nation is immune from prosecution. Sloboden Milosevich was captured and turned over to the World Criminal Court at the Hague, as was Radivan Karadsik for the horrible crimes that they ordered and oversaw in Bosnia and Yugoslavia. Recently, the same court issued an arrest warrant for the current President of the Sudan accusing him of crimes against humanity for the genocide in Darfur. What is a consistent theme in all of these examples is that you cannot hide behind the law when you commit immoral or illegal acts. You cannot claim some special exemption from culpability because you are at war or believe your country is under attack. You cannot hide behind the law of the land and shield your actions even if you wrote the law or run the country. You cannot claim you were just following orders, nor can you use fear of any group to single some out for torture or illegal imprisonment or any other illegal or immoral act. Perhaps most important of all, the Nuremburg trials and all subsequent legal opinions established clearly that the "end can never justify the means." So this week, when we discovered that American citizens, government employees, and CIA agents had been given permission to torture suspected terrorists; that they had in fact engaged in torture and that they had engaged in violations of both American law and international law. I felt sure that they would be prosecuted and brought to justice. How wrong could I have been? It appears that when Americans engage in torture, illegal detention, or human rights abuse; that they are immune from prosecution. In fact we were told that when CIA agents water boarded, slapped, electro-shocked, stripped naked, or used sleep deprivation against prisoners; they were acting honorably(according to former CIA directors and the current one Leon Panetta). We are told that because the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Justice Department wrote an opinion that such actions were in fact legal and appropriate; that these agents who followed orders and who took advantage of this legal cover were acting honorably and should be thanked for their service. We are told by President Obama that nothing will be served by pointing fingers and affixing blame. We are told by the President that it would be too divisive to hold these government employees accountable for their actions. We are told that if these criminals and torturers are tried, it will make agents timid and they will think twice before they do what must be done for fear of being prosecuted. We are told that after 9/11 we were all scared and thought another attack was imminent and just ordered the CIA to do what must be done, and besides, the lawyers said it was legal. We are told that this President and Attorney General will give a blank check to our intelligence agencies when the chips are down. When it's in America's interest torture is acceptable. The President signed an order saying "don't do it anymore." But if things get sticky again, we will ask our "honorable" CIA agents to hit, torture, and terrorize at will, knowing that they will never be held accountable. Legal scholars who have read these torture memos say they are not legal opinions, but merely political cover for acts the Bush Administration wanted to engage in after 9/11. The CIA destroyed all video tapes of these interrogations. Why did they do that if what they were doing was honorable and legal? If what the CIA was doing was justified, because of the fear of another attack, would it have been acceptable to torture the wife and children of these men if they could be captured? Could a White House lawyer write an opinion on the legality of torturing family members and make it an honorable thing to do? In a piece in the Wall Street Journal, two prominent intelligence and legal figures argued that it was terrible that these memos were made public. If Americans find out what the CIA was doing, it could prevent them from engaging in activity like this and make our intelligence gathering weak and less effective. The argument is made that weak and ineffective intelligence led us to being vulnerable to a 9/11 type attack. This is revisionist history at it's worst. Prior to 9/11, the CIA and the National Security Advisor Richard Clarke had "their hair on fire" that entire summer because they were sure something was about to happen. On August 6th, 2001, the CIA briefed the President in Texas with a paper concluding that Osama bin Laden was going to attack the United States and possible use our planes. Bush is alleged to have told the agents "...thanks, you have covered your ass" and then went fishing. Richard Clarke was told not to mention Osama bin Laden anymore in the White House. There was plenty of intelligence, but no interest in it in the Bush national security apparatus. President Obama has sent a terrible message to the rest of the world. When you engage in torture, kidnapping, and illegal activity, you will not be held accountable. When we do it we are acting honorably, and there will be no accountability. In a fair and just world, every one of these agents would be prosecuted. In a fair and just world, the lawyers who issued the opinions justifying these crimes would be prosecuted and disbarred. In a fair and just world, the President would condemn such acts and put in place the oversight necessary to prevent it from happening again. In a fair and just world, those who had been tortured at Guantanamo or any of the secret prisons run by the CIA or at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan would have access to the American justice system to sue those who had tortured them. If the President Obama is worried that trials would be divisive or prosecution would weaken the CIA, then at the very least he could endorse Senator Leahy"s call for a truth commission. He says he wants a transparent administration. The American people have a right to know how close we came to the destruction of the Constitution and the creation of some form of authoritarian government under George Bush. The American people deserve to know the truth. No one will be prosecuted; but we need to know how deep the torture went, how extensive the illegal spying was, how many lies were told to get us into Iraq, and how many laws were broken to keep Bush and Cheney in power. Americans need to know the truth. In the movie Judgment at Nuremburg, Burt Lancaster, the chief judge, is on the stand trying to justify why he gave his legal imprimatur to the acts of the Nazis. It dawns on him that he had subverted the very institution which was supposed to protect the people from the government's illegal acts. It dawns on him that he should have said no and refused to cooperate, but too late. There was no honor in the torture rooms and prisons. There was no honor in the pain inflicted. There was no honor as people screamed and begged for mercy. There is no honor trying to hide the truth. The only honor that can come from this tragic incident will come from shining the light of day on these modern war criminals and making sure they do not do it again. What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Proposition 8

In Vermont the legislature ignored the governor's threatened veto and legalized gay marriage. In Massachusetts, California, and now Iowa, state supreme courts have declared the ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional. In Washington DC, the city council voted to legalize gay marriage and to recognize gay marriages in other states. The Washington DC action must be approved by Congress, setting the stage for an historic and unprecedented debate on the subject. In California, voters passed Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage. The California Supreme Court is considering overturning that initiative. The times they are a changin' and Regressives are outraged and Progressives are thrilled. In poll after poll, people under the age of 40 support allowing gays to marry by growing majorities. In Vermont, legislators were quoted as saying, "...we have seen how these relationships worked. They present no problem in our state." Majorities of Catholics, Episcopalians, and other mainstream Protestants under the age of 30 favor gay union. Calls are growing louder to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military; one of those voices being General Eric Shinseki who once administered the program in the Army. California's Supreme Court must overturn Proposition 8 because there are certain rights that cannot be taken away by a majority vote. When the founding fathers proposed a new constitution, they had to include the Bill of Rights in order to gain ratification. There had to be certain rights that neither the government nor the "tyranny of the majority" could take away without showing a "compelling reason." It has always been a fear in a democracy that the majority could trample the rights of a minority unless certain rights were protected. The majority may not like what you write or speak. They may not like you burning the flag. The government may not like your criticism or may wish to force you to incriminate yourself to win a conviction; but you are supposed to be protected from this. One of the most sacrosanct principles of this nation is equal justice for all. Telling gay people that they cannot marry and take advantage of all the benefits that accrue to such an agreement is a denial of that principle that no vote can violate. In each case, Massachusetts, Iowa or California, opponents of gay marriage lost because they couldn't show a compelling reason for the state to discriminate against gay couples. They couldn't present an argument which trumped their rights to equal protection. Oh they tried all kinds of rationales and boogie men to scare the courts, but they failed. They originally tried religiously based arguments. You know them all. God did not create Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve. They could site Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hebrew Scriptures or Romans in the Christian Scriptures. (The one person they could never quote is Jesus who is surprisingly silent on such an important moral question.) They soon discovered that religious arguments didn't cut it anymore in court, so they had to try another tactic. The new argument was "tradition". (I can hear Zero Mostel in Fiddler on the Roof belting out "tradition, tradition".) Gays cannot get married because they have never been allowed such rights before, (tradition). Marriage has always been between a man and a woman(tradition). Marriage is the backbone of American society and the vehicle used to transmit morals and values to our children(tradition). The purpose of marriage is to produce children, and since gays cannot; they cannot marry, (tradition). Gays cannot give children the same parenting experience that straight couples can, including clearly delineated rules of mother and father, (tradition). The problem with these arguments is that they represent a hypocritical double standard and they are patently dishonest as well. The religious arguments hold no water because of separation of church and state and the natural resistance Americans have developed to people imposing their moral values on others. We have come a long way in this country. We no longer allow the Bible to be used to justify laws prohibiting the races from marrying or women from buying and selling contraceptives. The same religious arguments that justified racism and bigotry have given way to President Obama. The same Bible that raised anti-semitism to a sacrament gave way to a melting pot of Jews and Christians and Atheists living and working together. As for the tradition argument, it fails under the weight of its inherent dishonesty. If marriage is about reproduction, then why are people incapable of having children allowed to marry? Divorced couples are allowed to re-marry despite study after study showing that the children of divorce are harmed or negatively affected in many ways. The values that straight couples pass on to their children include prejudice, bigotry, lying, cheating and stealing as well as infidelity, adultery, mental cruelty, and physical abuse. The "traditional" married couples have produced everything from 'The Inquisition' to slavery to genocide to Jim Crow. I can make a better argument from "tradition" for prohibiting divorce than prohibiting gays from getting married. The Supreme Court has to overturn Proposition 8 because it is the right thing to do constitutionally. There is no compelling reason to allow the state to discriminate against gay couples. If there was one good solid argument against gay marriage, it would have carried the day already; as none of these courts wanted to rule in favor of gay couples. They were left with no other choice. They either believed in equal protection under the law or they did not. If they did not, they should resign. Proposition 8 is the very type of law that the founding fathers were wary of and that is why the Bill of Rights was included. The majority cannot vote away essential rights of the minority. If Proposition 8 is overturned, it is not a defeat of participatory democracy. If Proposition 8 is voided, the "people's will" has not been crushed. If Proposition 8 is found to be constitutionally wanting, then we are safe in our homes from the reach of government intrusion into our privacy for another day. If Proposition 8 is tossed into the dustbin of prejudice and bigotry, then the experiment of this nation and he idea of all men being created equal continues to progress. What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com