Sad State of Affairs

2006-01-21T09:21:00.000-08:00

An edited version of "The 80's are Back" has appeared in the Hoya. You can check it out here if you like.

The Eighties are Back

2005-12-04T20:29:00.000-08:00

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or so the saying goes. Unfortunately it seems that even those who did learn from history are hell-bent on doing the same thing, most likely because they learned something different. Straight out of the Central American 1980s, Shiite death squads are offing Sunni leaders in Iraq, apparently with training and aide of the United States. Obviously most good, patriotic Americans have dismissed any mentions of this they may happen to have heard of this in the liberal media as mere fabrications, but to dismiss it so quickly requires ignoring a fair amount of evidence to the contrary.
To begin with, back in January there were news reports that the Pentagon was debating a top-secret strategy dating to the Reagan administration, named by most news reports as the “Salvadoran Option.” Paramilitary and military squads were responsible for the extralegal kidnapping and murder of alleged leftist rebels, sympathizers, and even their family members. Despite nearly universally recognized massive civilian death tolls of these policies in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and other countries, many in the American government (and the citizenry for that matter) recognize these strategies as successful.
Following this, one cannot ignore the many people in the Bush administration who, either directly or through very few degrees of separation, have connections to the administrations which supported these policies. Most obviously, you have the President himself who is the son of Ronald Reagan’s Vice President. Next down the ladder is Dick Cheney. He served as the elder George Bush’s Secretary of Defense and was responsible for directing the universally condemned (even by staunch allies such as Augusto Pinochet) invasion of Panama. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also served directly under the Reagan administration as a Special Envoy to the Middle East. John Negroponte, well known for his involvement with the funding of the Contras in Nicaragua, served as the Ambassador in Iraq starting in 2004, but left the position in February of this year to assume the position of Director of National Intelligence. This is just a short list, and I’m sure you can find many more involved in the administration with very close ties to those responsible for the 1980s foreign policy in South and Central America.
However the circumstantial evidence does not stop here. Not only are those responsible for setting policy in the lower Americas involved, those who actually committed atrocities in the Americas are too. Back in the summer of 2004 there was (not so widely covered by the “liberal” media again) news that American mercenary companies such as Blackwater USA, were retired soldiers from countries like Chile, Argentina, Peru, Colombia, and Guatemala. The reason? The military in these countries are quite skilled (thanks to their training at the School of the Americas) in brutally repressive counter-insurgency tactics. Chilean newspapers estimate at least 37 Pinochet-era vets have gone to Iraq and one Argentinean journalist knows of at least 7 veterans of his country’s last military dictatorship who have left the country for the Middle East as well. Those directly responsible for disappearance, torture, and execution of the enemies of brutal dictators in countries like Argentina are finding new employment with “civilian security contractors” in Iraq.
Despite all this, I’m sure there are still some especially red-blooded Americans out there willing to dismiss all of this as mere coincidence. Not to worry, however, there is more. Recent news reports have surfaced that Shiite groups operating within the Iraqi police force are responsible for the arrest and detention of many Sunnis. Neither the American nor the Iraqi government denies that this is happening; however public statements and news reports obviously report it as an unintended consequence of the rush to build up Iraq’s police. One who is more trusting of governments than I might be tempted to believe these statements, but in light of what we have seen already, can we really ignore the possibility that this is not accident but policy?

Bye Bye Bill of Rights

2005-09-17T20:04:00.000-07:00

(This is a bit old, but still worth checkin out)

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the government has the right to keep José Padilla detained as an enemy combatant, held without charges and with no prospect of a trial. José Padilla is an American citizen and he was arrested on American soil.
One would think that the protections of the Bill of Rights would apply in this case. Amendment V states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia” and Amendment VI states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial”. José Padilla has been denied both of these, because he must be held indefinitely to protect Americans.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Padilla and his case, he was arrested in 2002 in Chicago after returning from Pakistan, allegedly having been trained in explosives by Al-Qaeda. The government also alleged that he had plans to blow up apartment buildings, and to detonate “dirty” bombs (bombs which scatter radioactive material). He was quickly designated an enemy combatant, and has spent the last three years in a Naval brig. While he was finally granted access to a lawyer, he has not been charged with any crime, and the government seems to have no plans to do so.
The justification for all this is that José Padilla has ties with Al-Qaeda. However, such a tie should be a non-issue. The Constitutional protection of all citizens in the case of government arrest given by the 5th and 6th Amendments trumps the only American legal precedent for the use of “illegal enemy combatant” status. This status was introduced into America in 1942 during the Supreme Court case ex parte Quirin in which German saboteurs were tried in the US. The Court ruled that they were unlawful combatants, and that they were subject to capture and trial by the military. Obviously, Supreme Court decisions, and in fact, all American law, must fall within the legal rules set up by the Constitution.
Another argument made by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who wrote the court’s argument (and, interestingly enough, may be under consideration for a Supreme Court seat), was that the power to detain individuals linked with Al-Qaeda was included in the USA PATRIOT Act, the massive group of anti-terrorism laws passed shortly after 9/11/01 which broadly expanded the powers of the government. It seems Luttig has perhaps forgotten that the Constitution and its amendments are the highest law in the land, and that if Congress passes a law which violates the Constitution, the Constitution trumps Congress.
So what’s the point of all this? Why bother defending some alleged terrorist? If José Padilla’s detention is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent. Any US citizen who is arrested could, in theory, be detained indefinitely merely with the claim that they have ties to a terrorist group. The government has provided no evidence of this link. No impartial jury has decided anything about this case. The government said “he’s a terrorist” and we have to take their word for it. Isn’t this how “justice” systems work in military dictatorships? Enemies of the state are seized based solely on the suspicion or declaration of the government, and held, tortured, or killed without any independent party deciding whether or not they have committed a crime.
If José Padilla did in fact have plans to kill Americans at the behest of Al-Qaeda, and the government could provide evidence to prove this, no judge or jury in the country would think twice about locking him up for life. Denying him his rights as an American citizen to a fair trial by an impartial jury is of huge consequence if it is not overturned by the Supreme Court. What scares me, perhaps even more than the fact that the government would do such a thing, is that there are people in this country who support such an action. They claim to have no cares about the rights of terrorists, and as such have no qualms with holding them without trial, torturing them, etc. Strangely enough, it is most often those who claim to fear big government, the Conservatives, who are perfectly comfortable with allowing the government to designate terrorists without independent review and do with them what it pleases. Such actions are the first steps towards a rollback of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Those who love liberty should not tolerate them, as the loss of any individual’s rights is a threat to the rights of all.

2005-09-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

This site may become defunct, since I've applied for a columnist position with the Hoya. If I do get the position, I will link to my columns from here though. So I guess it won't really be defunct. Nevermind. I did have to write two sample columns, so I may try to toss those up here later.

Mind Control

2005-08-03T19:32:00.000-07:00

“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

We take a short break from politics and examine culture this week. A recent study done by the University of California may reveal the new wave in dieting. Forget buying Atkins and South Beach books; for those who truly cannot resist indulging there may soon be a new solution: brainwashing. Psychologists at the University of California were able to make volunteers give up foods like strawberry ice cream, pickles, and hard-boiled eggs, and start eating asparagus, by implanting memories that the bad foods had made them sick as a child and that they had always liked the vegetable when they were younger. The woman who led the study Elizabeth Loftus is, according to The Guardian calls “a distinguished professor of psychology, social behaviour and criminology”, a title which raises interesting questions about just what the REAL planned uses of this technique are. Seriously, what is a criminologist doing running a study on dieting? Stephen Behnke, the ethics director at the American Psychological Association, rather than come out and say anything direct, simply raised questions about the ethics involved in changing childhood memories, suggesting that changing someone’s beliefs about their entire childhood might have some ethical problems.

As Behnke points out, the possibilities for abuse here are endless. If they truly can convince you to create new memories about what foods you liked, where’s this to stop (besides chocolate chip cookies and potato chips, which they have been unable to convince test subjects to dislike)? Not to pull out the classic fascist-future of 1984, but something like this could very easily be used to convince us that they raised our chocolate rations, right after they lowered them. Military applications would be quite fruitful as well: citizen recruits could be brainwashed to make them more ruthless killers, POWs could be given bad childhood memories of their home country in order to make them divulge information. As you can tell, this sort of procedure certainly isn’t something that I’d want the government to adopt. The last thing we are man-made pasts, created by those bent on controlling us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1541448,00.html

USA PATRIOT Act v. 2.0

2005-07-21T17:05:00.000-07:00

“To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, evaluated, censored, commanded; all by creatures that have neither the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue” Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Today the US House of Representatives began discussion on a bill which will, if passed, remove the sunset clause in the USA PATRIOT Act, making some parts of the act permanent, and simply extending the deadline for sunset for other parts. For those of you who have been living under a rock, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, a moniker coined with the only purpose of creating the acronym it is known by, gave new and increased powers to the Federal government to collect normally confidential information—medical, business, and library records, for example—and to tap phones and conduct other searches with greater ease when investigating an alleged terrorist or foreign agent. While the Act does provide that these investigations may not be based solely on actions which are protected by the First Amendment, Congress is once again looking to ban flag burning, so that protection, given a few more years, may not mean much.

So what’s the problem, you ask? Well aside from the fact that the original bill was hastily passed, with most Senators not even bothering to read it (makes you wonder how many STILL haven’t picked the thing up), the Act is based on the fundamental assumption that it is possible to curtail the liberties of some, without curtailing the liberties of all. One of its proponents, I assume a Republican, said (and I paraphrase, since I heard this quote on the news as opposed reading it in print) that while she cared very much about the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens, she did not care one bit about the liberties of terrorists. The problem here, like I said, is that to take the civil liberties away from criminals (before they have been tried) you have to take away the rights of all, because ANYBODY, innocent or not, can be an alleged criminal. The government, which has been known to make mistakes from time to time, could very easily take away the civil liberties of a law-abiding citizen by designating them (either accidentally or maliciously) as a suspected terrorist.

Of course, our President, though much of the left refuses to give them any credit, is smart enough to know that those who truly love civil liberty aren’t going to buy any of that nonsense. So how does he placate his followers? Easy: use the pain and suffering of others to scare them. Bush alluded to the recent attacks in London and said at a speech that “This is no time to let our guard down, and no time to roll back good laws”.

As usual, when push comes to shove, the Democrats can’t bear to be an opposition party. Sure they can filibuster a few judges here and there, but look soft on Homeland Security by supporting civil liberties? Oppose a bill with PATRIOT as its acronym? Heavens no! Rather than oppose the bill altogether, The Democrats merely proposed some amendments to it which would soften the effect. Obviously, the strongest ones did not get passed.

Those who love liberty must know that when you restrict the rights of some, you place the rights of all in jeopardy. Since I’m sure those who actually need to be convinced that this is a problem won’t really appreciate the anarchist quote above, perhaps this one from a more respected figure will get some attention, although I’m sure you’ve heard it before. Ben Franklin said “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In fact, he might better have said that they will get neither.

Tyranny at Home

2005-07-05T19:27:00.000-07:00

The United States recently celebrated its birthday, the day on which a group of disgruntled colonists declared Independence from the tyrannies of the British monarchy. Among the grievances listed were that the government (in the form of King George III) had: ‘sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance’, ‘[protected troops], by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States’, ‘[imposed] Taxes on us without our Consent’ ‘[deprived] us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury’, and ‘constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms’. Any of these sound familiar? Conscription: check. Suspension of Habeas Corpus: check. Taxation without representation: check. Protection of murderers among those supposedly there to keep the peace by mock trial: check. Giant bureaucracy: check (if they only knew).

Throughout its history, the United States, it seems, has become the evil it was once fighting. While we have done away with conscription, all of these other grievances can be found right here. Anybody who has ever dealt with any level of government, even the local Department of Motor Vehicles (or Department of Transportation, or whatever it may be called in your state/area) can see to what extent we have grown our bureaucracy. Police, while not quite the “armed troops” referred to by our founding fathers, are in a similar role as the government’s alleged peacekeepers, yet they who supposedly enforce the law, are seemingly immune from it. Washington D.C. remains effectively a colony, governed and taxed by Congress’s whim, but with no representation therein. The US, while generally good about maintaining the right to trial by jury, has had several notable suspensions: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for those who protested the Civil War, FDR suspended habeas corpus for those suspected of being Japanese traitors (known more commonly as the entire Japanese-American population) and, most recently, George W. Bush has begun to suspend the right to a speedy trial by one’s peers for terror suspects such as José Padilla, an American, arrested on American soil, who remains in the custody of the military.

As the US grows its government bigger and bigger, it seems to become more and more like the monster it once struggled to escape from. The restriction of liberties seems to get worse by the day. More bothersome still, it grows even closer to its former ruler with the gradual move towards more religious government. Jefferson said (something like) “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Perhaps his advice should be heeded.

Mad Cow?

2005-06-27T17:40:00.000-07:00

There was a story on tonight about how testing just uncovered the second case of mad cow disease in the US. I really don't understand why mad cow is still a problem. We've figured out how it's spread, when cows eat other diseased cows, so it should be really easy to fix. STOP WORRYING ABOUT YOUR FUCKING MONEY AND FEED YOUR COWS SOMETHING ELSE! That's it. I've got nothing else to say. It's really rather simple. That is all there is to the Sad State of Affairs Official Plan to End Mad Cow Disease. Elegant.

To Hell in a Handbasket

2005-06-23T09:50:00.000-07:00

The US Government has recently issued two more strikes against freedom. Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a bill proposing a Constitutional Amendment which would grant Congress the power to ban the desecration of the American Flag. In addition, the Supreme Court today ruled in favor of the city in the case of Kelo v. the City of New London, affirming the rights of local governments to seize private land and transfer it to developers who will build more profitable buildings on it. We, as American citizens, no longer own our homes. The government allows us to stay on our property because nobody has expressed interest in building something which will generate more tax revenue, yet. Add to this the USA PATRIOT ACT and it’s proposed follow-up, the proposed Constitutional amendment to define marriage (and the many state laws which have already done so), and the talk of repealing the 22nd Amendment (2-term limit on Presidential office) and we can see that the growing trend in the United States seems to be away from freedom and individuality, and towards a monstrous, powerful State.

When working-class families cannot feel sure that they will be able to keep their homes and not have them auctioned off by corrupt politicians to the highest bidder, when questioning the government becomes tantamount to treason, when the FBI keeps tabs on those who check the Koran out of the library, when the government can exclude a sizable minority from tax benefits because of popular opinion, it becomes obvious that this country is headed in a slow, downward spiral towards its demise. If infringement on freedoms and growth of government continues as it is now, the people will not allow it to stand. I’m not just talking about those who talk about revolution right now: socialists, anarchists, Communists, etc., but also Conservatives who are fed up with the government growing bigger even under Republicans, and Liberals who are fed up with government regulating private lives.

I generally end these columns with something clever, but not this one. This one doesn’t get a witty ending because it isn’t over. Watch the Right and watch the Left, and you will see that in reality they are not opponents, but allies. Conservative politicians put growing regulation on private life, legislating moral beliefs, while Liberal politicians put growing regulation on business, property, and private thought with hate crime laws, etc. Combined, they succeed in growing government on both fronts, which is, after all, the goal of those involved in government. If the government has more power, the politicians have more power. Somebody has their eye on a very long presidency if there is talk of getting rid of the term limit, but it probably isn’t Bush, since it’s way too late for him. Beware of charismatic leaders; beware of those who want to solve all your problems with just a little more government power. Government is a beast which cannot be satisfied. Crumbs only whet its appetite, and full meals do not fill it for long. Keep your eyes open, and watch the big picture. If you don’t, you won’t see it coming until it’s too late.

Playing Politics with Terri Schiavo

2005-03-22T14:46:00.000-08:00

Nobody cares about Terri Schiavo. Except for the few parties directly involved, her husband and other family, almost all of those involved have their own agendas. This has caused two major problems. The first is that large numbers of citizens not involved with the case are making judgments based on their beliefs, not facts. The second is that politicians in Florida and Washington D.C. are taking advantage of the incredible amount of publicity that the case is receiving to further their own agendas and try to gain more votes for the interim elections.
For those of you who have been living under a rock, Terri had a heart failure 15 years ago which caused her to suffer brain damage and she has been in the hospital ever since. After that point, most people stop agreeing on the facts. Several doctors have diagnosed Terri as being in a persistent vegetative state, from which there is no chance of recovery. Michael Schiavo claims that he had spoken with his wife about such a situation at some point before her accident, and she had voiced her desire not to be kept alive. If this was in fact her wish, however, she did not set it in writing. Terri’s blood relatives find this suspicious and claim, as do other doctors, that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state, but rather that she responds to visitors and other stimuli. Seeing as none of the uninvolved parties have ever been in the same room as Terri they are in no place to diagnose her condition. Those fighting for Terri’s right to live make a rather convincing argument against her husband, however. They say that he has incentive to lie. He wants to be rid of his wife so that he can marry another woman, with whom he has two children, and that he has consistently sabotaged efforts to try to rehabilitate Terri. What those on the right-to-life side ignore is the incentive for Terri’s parents to distort the facts either intentionally or unintentionally. Terri’s parents could be lying, however this isn’t likely. It’s possible that they know that she is in persistent vegetative state but think that claiming otherwise will help them prevent their daughter’s death. More likely, however, is that they don’t know, or refuse to know. They may be taking whatever basic brain functions she has left (including the ability to breathe and pump blood) to indicate that she is not “brain dead” and that she can recover. Losing a child is an incredibly traumatic event, and denial is an incredibly powerful psychological force. It’s highly possible that the judgment of the Schindlers (Terri’s parents) has been clouded by their emotions. Neither I, nor most of the vast majority of other individuals in this country, know the facts. This leads most to choose whichever set of facts is more convenient. The Christian right-to-lifers take the belief that Michael Schiavo just wants his wife dead because it makes their position more justified. Those who tend to look on Christian groups with some disdain have taken the side of her husband, probably because they have some aversion to allying themselves with their usual opponents.
The second problem is one of politics. In an effort to win over religious voters, many politicians have seen fit to involve themselves in the Schiavo case. Republicans have been playing this game since Reagan’s rise to power; the adoption of an anti-abortion platform was a convenient tool to draw Catholics away from the Democrats. In this case, not playing along is a dangerous game, since few Democrats want to be known as the men who murdered Terri Schiavo. The Florida legislature first passed Terri’s Law in order to have her feeding tube reinserted in October of 2003. The courts ruled it un-Constitutional in several rounds of appeals. Now, after the appeals have been settled and the court has again ordered the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, the US Congress has decided it will try its hand in the intervention; both the Senate and the House of Representatives have a version of Terri’s law on the table, and they held a special Palm Sunday session in order to try to pass them. In addition, Congress has subpoenaed Terri Schiavo, an invitation which makes it a federal crime to tamper with her. What’s the big deal? Congress has the power to create laws “which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution.” Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything which suggests that Congress has the power to make laws regulating the lives and actions of individual citizens. Allowing Congress to make such a law would open the door for immense abuse of power.
The protestors care most about their moral agendas, Judge Greer about his own political beliefs, and the politicians about getting re-elected. The precedents set either by her life or death could be disastrous. Everybody needs to stop worrying about their own agendas, and start thinking about Terri Schiavo. Congress has no business in this, and neither does the court. Michael’s word is the only proof he can offer of his wife’s wish to die, then he has no case. Congress, however, has no place making laws regarding the situation, and others have no place deciding which doctors are correct about Terri’s condition.

You Don't Need Discussion When You're Always Right

2005-03-13T19:41:00.000-08:00

Yet again the Republican Party is pushing the message that dissent is un-American and that good little patriots should simply toe whatever line George W. Bush decides to set. Many Republicans have been talking about using the so-called “nuclear option,” a rule change which could be accomplished by Cheney, as President of the Senate, challenging the filibuster rule by way of a “point of order.” In this case, a simple majority vote could eliminate the filibuster and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for Bush’s nominees. What has provoked the discussion of this “nuclear option”? The Democrats have dared to filibuster such nominees as William Myers III, a man who spent most of his career lobbying for the cattle and mining industries, or Terrence Boyle who has several times made decisions which circumvented federal laws banning discrimination by gender, disability, and race. Democrats are not challenging every nominee; they aren’t even challenging most of them. Last term, 204 nominees were accepted by the Democrats. They plan on filibustering about 20 right now, all of which were rejected last term. That doesn’t matter to the Republicans, however. The “moral majority” has decided that it has a mandate, and nobody is going to prevent them from enacting their agenda. They don’t care if they have to trample on minority rights, or abolish open discussion, as long as they get their way. “Their way” isn’t even beneficial for the American people. “Their way” means catering to corporate interests by approving judges who claim that all habitat conservation laws are unconstitutional because they interfere with potential profit.
The filibuster has not always been used productively. If the Republicans do not destroy it, it will continue to be used unproductively at times. There will always be individuals like Strom Thurmond, who for 24 hours delayed a vote on the Civil Rights Act. However, when you have a President whose party narrowly controls the Senate nominating bad judges and planning to broadly increase the government’s power, the filibuster is an absolute necessity. Both sides need and deserve a chance to voice their opinions. It is only through open discussion that the best solutions can be reached. The Republicans, especially the one in charge, need to realize that they are just as prone to error as anybody else. As mere mortals they should not be awarding themselves the power to unilaterally decide this countries fate.
With the filibuster gone and loyal Republicans goose-stepping behind the President, the Legislative branch will become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever nominee or law Bush throws at it; the Republicans are creating the conditions for an American dictatorship. Of course, that could be exactly what they have in mind.

Hear No Evil

2005-03-11T10:55:00.000-08:00

Alberto Gonzales and the Bush Administration seem to think that the American populace is made up of fools. How else can you explain their constantly shifting, self-contradictory statements? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and especially Syria (a member of the “Axis of Evil”) are human rights abominations and have histories of abusing and torturing prisoners. However, when the CIA sends prisoners there, we have no evidence that they are mistreated. This is the claim that new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made last Monday in a press conference. While he admitted that the government has little control as to what happens to the detainees once they are turned over to security forces in a foreign state, he also said that the US would never send suspects to a location in which we knew that they would be tortured. A very strong suspicion, apparently, is enough. Despite allegations of torture by several detainees who have been released, Gonzales continues to deny any knowledge. After all, we sought “additional assurances” of proper treatment from nations with poor human rights records before sending terror suspects to them. It’s absolutely amazing that the “assurances” of a dictator that he doesn’t have WMD are insufficient, but the “assurances” of a similar dictator that his forces will change their abusive practices are not. The White House, which claims to have the wisdom to see through the hollow lies of its enemies, seems to be quite content with the hollow lies of its friends.
Even worse, however, is that many do not even bother with the hollow lies. Many Americans seem to openly support using torture and other abusive tactics on terror suspects. They do not worry that CIA now no longer needs case-by-case approval to “render” suspects to security forces in countries like Syria or Saudi Arabia, both of which got the worst possible rating in Civil Liberties by Freedomhouse.org. These people who worship Reagan, a man quoted as saying “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I'm from the government and I'm here to help,’” have no problem with Big Brother government saying “It’s okay if we torture them, they’re terror suspects.” Since we know how these people feel about gays, liberals, communists, anarchists, and just about everybody else who isn’t them, it wouldn’t be terribly surprising if the next step were “It’s okay if we torture them, they’re social deviants.”

Chemical Weapons are A-OK!

2005-02-28T18:51:00.000-08:00

“Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world; and To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;
Declare:
That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration.” ~1925 Geneva Protocol for the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons use

In New York on Monday, the US District Court heard opening arguments in a suit that several Vietnamese suffering from health problems as a result of Agent Orange exposure during the Vietnam War are bringing against American chemical companies. Lawyers on the side of the Vietnamese argue that the use of dioxin-filled Agent Orange is a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning chemical and biological weapons, whereas the defense states that herbicides were not banned, and that the defoliants were necessary to protect American servicemen (who already won $180 million from the same chemical companies because of their own health problems). The Justice Department has urged the court to dismiss the case, stating that if successful the suit would be dangerous to the president’s power to make war. The government, however, despite the fact that it should be liable for its actions in Vietnam, is not a defendant in the case.
Who are we, the United States, to go around policing the world on WMD, when we won’t even take responsibility for our own use of chemical weapons? The US government broke the law, plain and simple. It acted negligently and as such has caused immense suffering among both the Vietnamese (including civilians) and former US servicemen. The Justice Department, going along with the current trend of this administration, seems to think that the US should be above the law. If chemical companies are held responsible for the damage they have caused, then that could impede our ability to use weapons which continue to wreck the lives of those they are used on or near, like depleted uranium. Depleted uranium shells are used in anti-tank weapons, but after use, the uranium gets into the soil and water and the radioactivity causes cancer, birth defects, and other health issues for the people living near the area. Thus it seems that the Justice Department wants the president to be able to maim and poison civilians (all in the name of freedom, of course) without having to worry that he or the companies that produce these weapons will face civil or criminal law suits. God bless America, eh?

For the story, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/nyregion/28orange.html?oref=login

For info on Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_orange and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium respectively.

The Rise of the American Martyr

2005-02-23T11:02:00.000-08:00

By: Justin Sane

Not long ago President Bush condemned Saddam Hussein for recruiting Palestinian suicide bombers by offering to pay $25,000 to their families. Last week, Mr. Bush proposed raising the death benefit for U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq to half a million dollars. When I learned of Mr. Bush's proposal, I couldn't help wonder: Will such payouts will create American martyrs?

Don't be tricked into thinking that Bush's proposal is about supporting the troops. This is the same man who sent American soldiers into combat under false pretenses, without the proper gear, and once they were deployed, cut their benefits! The proposed $500,000 death benefit payout is designed only for families of soldiers killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It is not applicable to anyone else in the military killed in the line of duty. These benefits offer substantial incentives for soldiers to die in two of the most dangerous places on the planet, and their "reward" is the knowledge that their family will be provided for after they are gone. Sounds like the same thing Saddam did. Hussein paid people who were martyrs for their cause, and you can bet that our soldiers' families will be told that their kid died for the noble cause of ending tyranny. And while they might not be promised a spot in heaven, you can be sure this rhetoric will invoke Bush's neverending themes of freedom--even though Iraq will not be truly free until Mr. Bush executes a real exit strategy.

In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Bush never mentioned this new proposal, but he explained that he knows our inner-city kids are struggling and need "better options than gangs or jail." Unfortunately, I don't think the "better options" Mr. Bush has in mind include easy access to higher education or decent-paying jobs. Instead, his "better options" include using these kids as cannon fodder for the neocon Project for a New American Century.

It's no secret that military recruitment is down, retention is down and our American forces are spread paper thin. The military needs warm bodies. Even with giving military recruiters extra access to students' private records as part of the No Child Left Behind legislation, kids are not signing up in the numbers needed to fight Bush's war. Today's youth are wising up to the reality that $50,000 for college does them no good if they're killed in Iraq. Simply put, $50,000 doesn't go far in a bad economy. On the other hand, half a million bucks dangling in front of those struggling inner-city kids gives them real incentive to join the military, especially when it's one of few viable options of escaping their bleak economic reality. If they're lucky enough to get killed in Afghanistan or Iraq, at least their family will be provided for.

It's no secret that the poor and minorities are overrepresented in the military. How many children of the wealthy sign up to be put in harm's way so they'll have money to go to college? How many rich kids join the military because there hasn't been any work in their community for the last 20 years and there's no sign of things changing anytime soon?

The rich already have money to go to college, and the world is their oyster. You can bet it's never been part of George and Laura's plans to have young Barbara and Jenna join up, but Bush seems to have no problem with poor kids from the ghetto and rural America doing so. Ask yourself, how many people, poor or otherwise, would do this job without the financial incentive? The poverty draft has been around for decades. This proposal simply ratchets it up a notch.

Soldiers who are killed in the line of duty deserve to know that their families aren't going to lose the house and wind up on the street because of their death. The Bush administration, however, is being very selective about who is going to receive this proposed increased death benefit, and they will methodically, relentlessly and with immeasurable cunning create the myth of the American Martyr as they send out those checks. Just like Saddam did.

Justin Sane is the lead singer of Anti-Flag and board member of Underground Action Alliance.org and PunkVoter.com.

Overstepping Eminent Domain

2005-02-21T18:32:00.000-08:00

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
—US Constitution: Amendment V

The Supreme Court will soon have a chance to truly defend the Constitutional rights and protect American citizens from the steady march towards oppressive government. Yesterday they heard arguments in Kelo v. City of New London. New London, Connecticut has begun abusing the “right” of eminent domain to wage a war on the working class. In 1998 Pfizer agreed to put in a $270 million research facility, right near the neighborhood that is currently in dispute. The city plans on developing the working-class, waterfront neighborhood of Fort Trumball by replacing the homes with a hotel complex, a conference center, offices, condominiums, and an aquarium. The problem, is, that the seizure here does not constitute the power of eminent domain as it is vaguely described in the Fifth Amendment nor as the Supreme Court interpreted it in 1954. The Fifth Amendment only provides for seizure for public use (highways, parks, etc would fall in this category), but the city wants to take the land to sell it to a developer. In 1954, the Supreme Court expanded this power to allow seizure of property in “blighted” neighborhoods, and since then lower courts have allowed seizures based on improving property to increase taxes and jobs in “distressed” areas. Fort Trumball does not fit this description either. It is a working class neighborhood filled with hard-working homeowners, or, rather, it was until the city bulldozed most of it.
What the city of New London wants to do is essentially kick out those who it views as less profitable to the city and allow those who are already prospering to make even more money. They are overstepping their bounds and essentially saying that the city values rich developers and corporations over individuals. If the Supreme Court allows the decision to stand, the damage to individual rights could be irreparable. At the very best, it could lead to a pseudo-utilitarian authoritarianism where the state kicks out the undesirables to benefit “the economy.” At the worst, it could lead to corrupt abuse of power by city officials, seizing land and selling it to whoever donated the most to their campaign funds. Can you imagine this knock on your door?
“Sorry sir, you’re going to have to leave your home. The city is seizing it under eminent domain to build the mayor a new mansion.”

More info at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain/ (the story on CNN) and http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-108.htm (the Supreme Court Docket for the case)

Kids are People Too

2005-02-13T23:05:00.000-08:00

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
–US Constitution: Amendment IV

Students, it seems, stand to lose what few rights they still have. A public elementary school in rural California has implemented a new policy which requires students to wear radio frequency identification (RFID) badges to track their movements on school property. The badges were introduced about a month ago and are very similar to devices used to track livestock. The school has stated several reasons for implementing the new system, without parental input. The first is to facilitate attendance-taking. Apparently reading off a list of names is too difficult for teachers in Sutter, CA. The other stated purpose is to reduce vandalism and improve student safety. I was unaware that vandalism and violence were big problems in small rural communities. But I suppose they have a point, those 2nd graders have been known to call each other some pretty nasty names. The school also plans to add barcodes to the badges so that students can use them to purchase lunch at the cafeteria and check out books. What advantages does this system offer that would justify the huge rights violations? The truth is, not very many. It removes one or two steps of data entry in attendance-recording and does away with paper hall passes (if the school had them). The school does not seem to have had any real safety issues. So why the unnecessary change? As with most government actions, following the money often leads to the real motives. It turns out that the company which developed this RFID system, InCom Corp., is located near Sutter and was co-founded by a parent of a former student and appears to paying the school quite handsomely for allowing its students to be guinea pigs.

Two of the students did what needs to be done more frequently, they said no. The ACLU is threatening a suit and hopefully the courts will tell the school that it can’t play Big Brother with US citizens. While those Americans under 18 may be subject to the command of their parents, they are still entitled to the same protections as everybody else when it comes to the government. The 4th Amendment still applies. School officials cannot search their students without a warrant. They cannot have police raid the school in some wild goose chase for drugs, and, in the process, treat every student like a criminal (see picture of students on the ground while cops watch with guns drawn). These actions are flat out UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that is unless they think minors don’t count as “people.”

For more information on the RFID story go to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6942751/.

For information on the 2003 police raid of Stratford High School go to http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/stratford-raid.htm. A video of the incident (Real player required), can be found at http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=14576&c=19.

The "have some balls" rule

2005-02-08T20:32:00.000-08:00

I am enacting a rule which is tentatively entitled the "have some balls" rule. If you want to leave a comment, you're gonna have to attach a name to it.

cowards need not apply.

Christiano-Fascism

2005-02-08T06:22:00.000-08:00

A fascist is one who exalts a certain nationality, religion, ethnicity or other group over all others and seeks to impose his or her will on this group by force. The rise of violence by Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East led to the creation of the term “Islamo-fascist.” These Islamo-fascists seek to create and maintain theocratic governments under shari’a law and, as we are quite aware of, are willing to use any method to further this end.

What many in the United States are not aware of, however, is a different kind of fascism lurking in our midst: Christiano-fascism.

Christiano-fascists have for the most part avoided violence, but are still, like the Islamo-fascists, openly trying to turn religious law into state law. And as last November’s elections demonstrated, they are a force sizable enough to push their un-Constitutional measures forward.

Gay marriage was outlawed in 11 states. Civil unions were as well in eight of those 11. Thanks to the president, abstinence-only education, which relies on scare tactics, is becoming more and more prevalent in public schools. Aside from the fact that promoting abstinence-only education expresses an obviously religious position that is being forced on children, the programs don’t work. Abstinence is 100 percent effective — except when it doesn’t happen.

Unfortunately, most of these Christiano-fascists are unaware of the natural end to which their agenda will lead — authoritarianism and hatred.

Some Christiano-fascists have already started down that path. The Westboro Baptist Church is one such group. The WBC makes periodic appearances in order to protest America’s descent into hell for catering to the “fag” agenda. They believe that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the recent tsunami were methods of God’s retribution against those (specifically homosexuals) who break his law.

At the inauguration, most of those who walked past WBC members after Bush’s speech strangely rejected the messages of “Thank God for 9/11” and “God Hates U.S.A.,” although most of these people in the parade probably voted (or would have voted) for the ban on gay marriage and civil unions. And there are other organizations whose actions are more in the realm of terrorism.

A group which calls itself “The Army of God” has claimed responsibility for bombing several abortion clinics and gay nightclubs. They have a Web site glorifying Paul Hill, the man who sniped off an abortion doctor, and one dedicated to Shelly Shannon, a woman who has burned and bombed multiple abortion clinics.

Their Web site advocates various “covert methods of stopping abortion” which include drilling holes in roofs, getting people to mail bodily fluid samples for AIDS tests to abortion clinics, making bomb threats and even destroying abortion clinics.

They also suggest, for the lucky few who learn that they have little time to live (sounds like martyrs to me), that they go on torching and bombing rampages. Getting caught is no longer a problem since the individual will soon be dead.

Their site condemns more moderate Christians who tolerate the fact that “government contradicts the Bible and says Homosexual behavior is legal … removes right for juries to refer to Bible in reaching their decisions … removes right of local citizens to display religious symbols on property owned by we the people … [and] requires that teachers omit teaching about how God created the universe.”

This group is not just militantly anti-abortion. They are militantly pro-theocracy.

Of course, most Christians denounce organizations such as this one. The real problem lies in how to demonstrate to these more moderate Christiano-fascists that hatred and authoritarianism are the only possible ends to legislating religious law when their reactions demonstrate that this is not what they seek.

Maybe the religious right needs to expand its belief of personal responsibility beyond economic self-sufficiency; maybe they just need to let the rest of us go to hell in peace.

Privatization of Paternalism

2005-01-31T23:16:00.000-08:00

This past Thursday, four workers at a Michigan healthcare firm, Weyco, lost their jobs. The reason: refusing to take a drug test, for nicotine. At the end of last year the firm initiated a ban on smoking, telling its employees that they had until January 1st to quit smoking or quit working. The company claims it wishes to keep health costs down and set an example for other companies seeking to improve employee health. More to truth, what they are doing is a fundamental violation of individual rights. They don’t plan to stop with smoking, either. The company also says it plans to crack down on eating and exercise habits if it survives the possible legal challenge.
How does Weyco’s management think they have the right to dictate their employees’ personal habits? If they wish to ban smoking on their property, that is their option. However, saying that employees cannot entertain perfectly legal vices while not on the job is not. Of course, somebody should have seen it coming. It was of course the next logical step after illegal drug tests. That was the first incursion employers made into their employees private lives. Few people complained because we all know that druggies are stupid, lazy, and don’t work anyway. Since Weyco seems to have no qualms about dictating employee behavior 24/7 I doubt they’ll stop with obesity. Their next move is probably to take on sexual deviation. I’m sure they’ll frame it as a way of improving employee health (since everybody who has pre-marital or homosexual sex gets an STD, of course). The real question is what the company will do once it has its cubicle workers in shape to run marathons. Will it move on to spiritual health from physical health and force all employees to attend religious services?
I can only hope that these workers challenge their employers’ blatant invasion of their private lives and rights. I hope somebody takes the next step and eliminates tests for illegal drugs as well. If this trend of increased regulation of private lives is not reversed, one can only imagine what kind of flaming hoops one will have to jump through to get and hold a job. Paternalism: it’s not just for the government anymore.

Hypocrisy at the Inauguration: No Surprise

2005-01-24T23:23:00.000-08:00

Hypocrisy reigned amid the pomp and circumstance of this past Thursday’s inauguration ceremony. At the center of it all was George Bush, who in delivering his speech demonstrated complete detachment from history and his own actions. He began by celebrating “the durable wisdom of our Constitution,” the very same document which reads “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office,” just seconds after placing his hand on a Bible and affirming his oath with the words “so help me God.” The Oath, in its current form, is a religious test. One who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian God could not take this oath. That’s blunder number one, Mr. President.
Following this, the President wasted little time in inciting 9/11. However, in doing so he demonstrated a firm grasp on a rather unique version of history. He claimed that “After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.” The generally accepted date for the fall of the USSR is 1991 (we will forget for now that it is the only Communist nation to have “shipwrecked”). Here’s a list of military engagements the US has been in since then: Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), Operation Restore Hope (Somalia ‘92-‘93), UN Protection force in Macedonia (‘93) Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti ‘94-‘95), Balkan War (‘94-?), 1998 attack on “chemical weapon plant” in Sudan (actually a pharmaceutical plant), Operation Infinite Reach (Afghanistan, ‘98), Operation Desert Fox (Iraq, ‘98), UN force in Yugoslavia (Serb-Kosovo conflict, ’99). Add to this the Drug War on Latin America, and we see that the military spending of the Cold War never ended. We were involved nearly constantly in military conflict between 1991 and 2001.
One of the most hypocritical comments of the day was his statement to the oppressed peoples of the world, “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors” except for Angola, Azerbaijan, China, Eritrea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan. All of these nations are either on good terms with the US or part of the Iraq Coalition and have rankings at or below 5 (on a scale of 1 being most free to 7 being least free) in political and civil liberties in the Freedom House 2005 Report, thus earning the label of “Not Free.” Numerous others were ranked only “Partly Free” as well. Just what message are you trying to send by allying yourself with tyrants, Mr. President?

Don't Hate Him Because He's Beautiful

2005-01-17T15:56:00.000-08:00

Apparently a 51% approval rating means you’re perfect. President Bush seems to think that way. He claimed in a recent interview that because of his (quite narrow) victory in the 2004 election, “an accountability moment” as he called it, he is completely vindicated in his approach to the Iraq war and nobody in his administration should be held accountable for mistakes in the prewar stage or the current situation. I wish that excuse worked for everybody. Imagine if you could get a 51% on a test and tell your professor that it obviously demonstrated that you knew all the material.
Meanwhile in Iraq, the pre-election violence is so bad that few will even admit to being a candidate. At rallies men campaign for parties not specific individuals and then quickly leave with armed guards, reports the New York Times. The United Iraqi Alliance, on an advertising flier, only lists 37 of its 252 candidates for the assembly. The flier says “Our apologies for not mentioning the names of all the candidates…but the security situation is bad, and we have to keep them alive.” But 51% of those that chose to go out and vote voted for Bush, so of course we can’t say anything bad about it.
Meanwhile the United States’ forgotten war, the War on Drugs, is having some problems as well. On a side note, isn’t it funny how those politicians who champion personal responsibility and claim to be anti-paternalism still waste our tax dollars supporting Latin American military/police action against drug cartels? “You’re responsible enough to not need welfare ever, but not responsible enough to make your own decisions about drugs. Well, alcohol and tobacco are okay, but no others.”
Mexico, despite arresting 100 drug traffickers that the United States wanted them to get, including 15 of the most-wanted leaders, is still facing drug-related violence. Some of these men, including one Joaquín (El Chapo) Guzmán Loera have escaped and are now rebuilding their empires, while some others try to defend their territory from prison. Jorge Chabat, a Mexican expert on organized crime that the number of arrests “means nothing. It hasn't stopped drugs from moving across the country. In fact, all it has done is created more violence.”
Now Mr. Chabat, don’t say things like that. Our president has a mandate and his foreign policy is perfect. It’s obvious that you Mexicans just did something wrong.

2005-01-15T23:13:00.000-08:00

So I think the next article is going to be on the drug war and stuff that's goin on in South America with that right now. Keep your eyes peeled for it in the next couple days.

2005-01-12T10:07:00.000-08:00

yeehaw, the column is up and running with the first article posted on the georgetown website. You can find here. This probably means that it will appear on the georgetown page every wednesday. You guys might get to see it here on tuesday.

2005-01-11T22:25:00.000-08:00

apparently this blog doesn't have enough posts on it for blogexplosion. What this blog contains is a weekly column which will also appear on the my.georgetown.edu website. It may also contain unused columns etc. The first column appears below. The second will be up sometime next week.

Who Needs Ethics Anyway?

2005-01-06T23:20:00.000-08:00

The 109th Congress wasted little time getting down to business when it convened this past Tuesday. One of the first orders of business, muscled through by the Republican majority, was a change in the way in which the House Committee on Ethics handles complaints. Any deadlock in the ethics Committee, which is evenly split between both parties, will now result in the dismissal of the complaint. Republicans claim that this new rule will prevent partisan squabbling, because now Democrats will be unable to launch attacks without any backing. However, it seems more likely that it will simply eliminate ethics complaints altogether. For the most part, politicians place politics before principle.

Remember when the Republicans revoked their rule prohibiting indicted individuals from serving in leadership positions in order to shield Tom DeLay from the possibility of having to step down if he was indicted on campaign finance charges (on a side note, Mr. DeLay, in the same Tuesday session, asked his party members to reinstate the rule because he didn’t believe that it was likely that he would be charged). Do the Republicans really expect that now, of all times, the parties will stop bickering and do the right thing when there’s a possible ethics violation? Or do they just wish to prevent their members from being investigated? Maybe some of the other actions from Tuesday’s session can offer some clues as to their agenda.

In the Senate, Bill Frist is saddling up to get rid of what the Philadelphia Inquirer calls “one of the Senate’s most revered rules,” the filibuster. Frist wants to enact a rules change which would allow a simple majority to force a vote on judicial nominees. Now let’s get this straight, a simple majority vote of 51 (meaning 4 whole Republicans can say no, so Specter isn’t a problem) will force a vote, and another majority will approve it. Sounds like the Republicans have an agenda on their hands for this year.

Have the Republicans (and the Democrats for that matter) forgotten their principles? Have they forgotten that debate among those with different ideas can lead to moderate solutions which are more amicable and often more beneficial than extreme positions? Have they forgotten that they are supposed to be public servants and career politicians who act in their own interests? It certainly seems that way.