Reinstatement of Habeas Corpus Reveals Bush Admin Has Been Snark Hunting…

Hot from the presses folks… now that habeas corpus has been restored for the detainees at Gitmo, the first cases are being heard and guess what? The government’s evidence is pure bullshit, or as the New York Times put it, “based on bare and unverifiable claims” (source).

…A three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.

The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem “The Hunting of the Snark”: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The unanimous panel overturned as invalid a Pentagon determination that the detainee, Huzaifa Parhat, a member of the ethnic Uighur Muslim minority in western China, was properly held as an enemy combatant (source).

The sad part of this story… sadder than the fact that it has taken six fucking years to finally return the rights that should have been afforded to these people in the first place… is that the man in question in this case has already told his wife to remarry because he considered himself “already dead” or at least unlikely to ever see the light of day outside of Guantanamo. But even worse than that is that he probably cannot return to China and over 100 countries have rejected taking him in.

So, as these cases are reviewed, we’re likely to see those who are freed also have no where to go… so not only have we wasted 6 years of their lives by locking them away for no reason, stripping them of their humanity (because these detainees still lack the rights that we afford to even our worst enemies under the UN charter–assuming we still follow it, anyway), no, robbing them of 6 years wasn’t enough. We’ve created a class of “untouchables” that no country wants. These people have nothing. Their lives have been completely severed and tattered… and for what reason?

Well, in this case, it was simply because the Bush administration went Snark hunting: statements about this man were repeated in 3 documents and that was enough “evidence” to destroy his life.

I can’t express the anger and shame I feel right now to live in a land that has been so derailed from its once noble ideals of justice and fairness. I thank god that we seem to have finally come to our senses. What a pity that it has taken so long and damaged so many in the meantime.

The first step is to set the innocent free. The second step must be taken by people like you and me… we must hold these treasonous fearmongers accountable for the lives they have destroyed on a whim. We have allowed them to betray the spirit of democracy and justice for far too long. If we have any sense of justice, we’ll stand up and speak for all those that remain unjustly shackled and languishing.

We must face our own cowardice. It’s so easy to sit there and shrug our shoulders because we haven’t been tossed behind bars. Our families haven’t been torn asunder. We don’t have the power to do anything about this… right? Are you sure? How many lives must be uprooted, displaced, bombed, dismembered, disabled, blown up, shot up, hacked up, or severed before it becomes wrong enough for us to muster the courage to act?

Shit like this will only stop when we make it stop.

Obama… better than the other crappy choices.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m excited to think that the United States may finally end its racist monopoly on the country’s highest position of power. For all of our bullshit and crowing about freedom and our progressive democracy, the U.S. is one of the few democratic nations on the planet that has yet to see a woman and/or person who is not of the dominant race in this position of power. And, out of the choices that we Americans have faced for that office over the last 8, or even I’d go as far as to say 16 years, Barack Obama is the best candidate I’ve seen on the docket.

He speaks of hope. He has an understanding of issues of both race and class that, from what I can tell, is unparalleled to any past president. He seems grounded in a sense of fairness and rationality. He was spoon-fed the same bullshit yet still managed to vote with his conscience when going to war with Iraq. He’s able to form an argument and defend his position with useful, informed perspectives… something I have really missed ever since George took the reigns. Just the simple instance of hearing someone make a logical case for something they believe in has been so rare these past 8 years. But most importantly, he seems willing to listen to other people and is not afraid to have his ideas challenged… which I’d say is the opposite of our current president, who is so afraid of ideas outside the party line that he insulates himself from them almost entirely.

So yes, Barak is the best choice. Far better than anything Clinton had to offer… although what a shame that Hillary had to essentially paint herself as an aggressive, aloof hardliner in order to compete with the likes of the (republican) competition. I understand why she did it… electability and sexism. If she had been any less callous about her stance on the war or shown any signs of compassion, she would be labeled weak by the male population (and the many women who have been brainwashed by the system to consider such qualities a frailty).

I don’t think I need to go into why Barak is better than McCain considering that McCain is just as willing as the current administration to spin the truth. My favorite, tell-tale quote from McCain is the line about how, when he visited Iraq, he could walk “down the streets [of Baghdad] with no body armor on…” to which any number of news outlets then cut to photos of McCain wearing body armor, he and his delegation guarded by over 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks and 2 Apache gunships overhead ensuring the area was safe. Clicky for more McCain bullshit. McCain, to me, is just another branch of the extremely privileged, out-of-touch with reality elites that think they know what’s best for us little people.

But why do I think Barak is only the best out of the available choices and not a glowing candidate in and of himself?

With Hillary out of the race, Obama promptly declared on CNBC: “I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market.” Jason Furman is heading up his economic policy. Mr. Furman is a Wal-Mart supporter who thinks the people who are desperately trying to get Wally World to raise its wages are the problem, not the fact that Wal-Mart pays extremely substandard wages and cuts corners in nearly every way possible regarding benefits and compensation. Hell, Wal-Mart is one of the biggest drains on government hand-out programs since it actually suggests that its employees make use of federal programs so that the company doesn’t have to worry about things like health insurance (Medicaid and other taxpayer subsidized health services) or paying enough money on which a family could live (food stamps usage has shown to drastically increase once a Wal-Mart moves into town).

Let’s step away from economics and markets and take a look at foreign affairs. Obama has said that he supports an “undivided Jerusalem” as the capital of Israel. Not even Bush has been this myopic and callous regarding both the UN Resolution and international consensus that regards Jerusalem as an international city.

Obama has also decided to continue the embargo against Cuba… which, last time I checked, was in violation of so many human rights that every government of the United States since the beginning of the embargo (1962) could literally have crimes against humanity charges successfully brought against them for supporting it.

And then there’s the reappearance of the Monroe Doctrine in his speeches… or at least the spirit of it. For those unfamiliar with the term, the Monroe Doctrine has been used by politicians to sanction U.S. military and covert intervention in Latin America since its inception. When we don’t like the way a democratically elected government is running things, Monroe tells us we have the right to support death squads and Contra forces to beat the population to an utter pulp until that country’s government is forced to stop its socially-minded programs for the poor and working class and spend its money and time on defending its borders and civilian population (Nicaragua). Or, it means we have the right to support brutal dictatorships or carry out coups to install tyrants and thugs as long as they keep the way paved for U.S. investors (Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.) . Read my article on Nicaragua for one example. If more info is needed here, just toss a comment at the end of this entry and it’ll be provided.

Obama has been quoted as saying we have “lost Latin America” (makes you wonder why we’re entitled to possess it in the first place…) and has talked about other ways we should be using our influence within the continent. Considering how many names of Latin American countries you can type into Google with the words “coup,” “dictatorship,” or “death squads” and then add “United States” and come up with a large number of hits detailing our sordid history within those lands, you would hope our best choice for president would be a little bit more aware of what he was saying….

And then there’s Iraq. Will Obama end the war he initially voted against? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. Even though the Barak Obama website claims we will “have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months,” Americans should understand that merely means we will have, at best, half our troops home. It says nothing of the military training forces, mercenary troops, no-bid contractors and commercial enterprises that have been bleeding the country and its resources dry since they set foot in Iraq.

And, even if we did somehow miraculously pull all of our troops out of Iraq, Obama thinks we need to “finish the fight in Afghanistan” (Obama’s website). Okay, so Obama was against the obviously misguided war against Iraq. But saying we need to finish the fight in Afghanistan means he thinks it’s a conflict that is worth fighting… that we “should” be there. I do not share this view.

The purpose for attacking Afghanistan was to respond to the attacks of 9/11. Yet, even when the Taliban gave us an opportunity to bring the supposed mastermind of the attacks to justice (first they asked for evidence against Osama, then later offered to give him up w/o that requirement), we opted to dismiss their offer and proceeded to bomb the hell out of the civilian population. Since “we don’t do body counts” (Gen. Tommy Franks), we’ll never know the true number of civilian casualties… yet I can imagine that the continuing occupation of Afghanistan has only made it more difficult to distinguish civilian from “insurgent” as those fighting the U.S. and its allies have had to resort to guerrilla-style warfare in order to survive. (Hey, we did it vs the British, too.) Thankfully, some people have tried to keep a tally.

Afghanistan also paved the way for Iraq as it allowed us access to areas within the Middle East from which we could launch attacks, position troops and gather intel (for what little good that did us… heh). With these things in mind, I see the war raging in Afghanistan as little more than a punching bag to satisfy our need for vendetta for the crimes committed against us in September several years ago.

Now, for those of you who believe the War on Terror is a just cause, you may want to make sure you’ve thought the whole thing through thoroughly. My views on the subject are readily available.

So, yeah, Obama is the best choice out of a series of crappy ones. Let’s hope his desire for change keeps his mind open and flexible in the years to come if he indeed succeeds in becoming our nation’s next president.

Much to do…

There are tons of things going on in the world today.  Foremost, the aftermath of the earthquake that struck China’s Sichuan Province is massive and will require the world community to act quickly in order to fend off the looming threat of disease and famine that will result if aid does not reach those who need it most.  The link in the previous sentence is to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.  The site is equipped with the ability to accept online donations so there’s no red tape to wade through, no government coffers and filters to traverse.  Right now the death toll is over 12,000 and is expected to rise given the conditions of the province.

Elsewhere, Bush makes yet another public accusation about Iran sending weapons to Iraq.  However, as the LA Times reports, the accusations are hardly iron-clad.  For example, a scheduled press conference last week intended on exposing Iranian-supplied explosives was canceled because none of the weapons were actually from Iran.

Iran, on the other hand, is filing lawsuits against the U.S. and Britain because we gave financial support to a group that bombed a mosque in Shiraz.  Fourteen people were killed in the incident.

And of course, the junta continues to thwart aid workers and NGO’s efforts to get aid out to the people in Myanmar.  The current toll in Myanmar due to the cyclone is over 32,000, but the lack of aid getting to those that need it most will cause that number to rise sharply in the near future.

Ban Ki-moon: “We are at a critical point. Unless more aid gets into the country very quickly, we face an outbreak of infectious diseases that could dwarf today’s crisis. I therefore call, in the most strenuous terms, on the government of Myanmar to puts its people’s lives first. It must do all that it can to prevent this disaster from becoming even more serious.

There’s much more going on at the moment but I’m out of time for now.  I’ll be posting more on a few of the issues soon.

Nicaragua

Because the post was rather long, I put it on its own page. It contains a rundown of the United States’ involvement in Nicaragua in the post-WWII era, with special attention paid to the acts of U.S. terror committed against Nicaragua for which the U.S. was found guilty in the World Court.

Read more.

On The U.S. Education System and Classism

A discussion I had a while back on the U.S. education system and classism.

Clicky: U.S. Education and Classism.

The Wall, Again

The recent events regarding the breach in the comparatively short 40-foot security fence that runs between Gaza and Egypt at the end of January have brought some long-needed attention back onto the much larger Israeli West Bank Barrier. Back in July of 2004, I was condemning this larger security wall, pointing to the unanimous World Court decision that found the barrier to violate International law. Thanks to U.S. backing, Israel ignored the Court’s decision and has been expanding the wall steadily for over four years. The Barrier is now more than 260 miles long and while its route runs mostly along the 1949 Armistice line, or “Green Line,” much of the infrastructure deviates from several typically agreed border lines and cuts into Palestinian land.

Furthermore, since it’s inception, the barrier has cut off, split up and been one more excuse for Israel to raze Palestinian homes, worsening the endless crisis of internally displaced persons already set into motion by Israeli settlements and occuptation. Without the Wall, refugees could, in time, move on to some other place and reestablish themselves. Now, the Wall gives them no where to go and no way to get there even if they had a destination. In addition, the wall has cut off supplies including food and medicines. The intense need for these basic materials was highlighted by flood of goods that gushed over the border immediately following the breach of the Gaza-Egypt wall. Additionally, the Security Barrier actively strangles the Palestinian economy by not only restricting the flow of goods in and out of the West Bank but by denying Palestinian workers the freedom of movement–specifically their ability to get to and from work on a daily basis. And perhaps even more troubling is that the Barrier is future-proofing suffering by cutting off children from their schools, which will have long term impacts on the Palestinian economy and job markets.

The negative wake of this Barrier is already manifesting itself. Hard evidence has been gathered in the form of general misery and frustration on one end of the spectrum and a rising body count on the other. People can only go so long without their homes, access to foods, medicines and basic services, or a freedom of movement. Even the most critical cases, such as medical emergencies, routinely face the reluctance of the Israeli border guard to allow passage.  And, of course, I think it’s essential to point out that the Barrier is not even 60 percent complete.  The finished version is projected to span 436 miles and that means hundreds more destroyed homes, displaced peoples and more pain and misery to come as families and communities are split into pieces.

So the question is, is the Barrier worth it? Well, if you scan the headlines of the U.S. media, you’ll probably get caught up in the statistics that show that infiltrations into the Israeli homeland have been greatly reduced. In other words, where the barrier is complete, attackers are intercepted or are otherwise thwarted. This is a good thing, at least at face value. However, closer examination shows that, as journalist Amos Harel of Haaretz points out, “The security fence is no longer mentioned as the major factor in preventing suicide bombings, mainly because the terrorists have found ways to bypass it.” Even the Shin Bet (the Israeli equivalent of the U.S. FBI) believes the reduction in terrorist attacks is more likely due to better police work, the increased influence of Hamas, and most importantly, a general truce among Palestinian militant groups.

So while there have been fewer attacks on the Israeli homeland, and I’m sure the Barrier has played some factor in that reduction, the question about whether or not the ends justify the means remains open for debate. However, I refuse to narrow my moral playing field this myopically. I cannot agree with those who justify the Wall by pointing out the potential security gains. In the end, every person considered “protected” by this Barrier was made so by the blood, displacement and misery of others.

For me, the question is, “How many people need to have their lives destroyed before it becomes wrong?”

Sources and Further Information:

World Court Says Israeli Barrier Violates International Law – NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/international/middleeast/09CND-WALL.html?ex=1202965200&en=2f2937d8fe096a70&ei=5070

Shin Bet: Palestinian truce main cause for reduced terror:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=664916

Displaced by the Wall:

http://www.badil.org/Wall-Report.pdf

General assembly establishes register of damage arising from construction of wall by Israel in occupied Palestinian territory – U.N.: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10560.doc.htm

Israeli West Bank Barrier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

The Elections – The Health Care Debate

Everyone is talking about the elections, the primaries and the candidates. The media conglomerates are in a tizzy over who said what, comparing each front-runner to the next, and making predictions over who will ultimately win the chance to make a run for the White House.

The “issues” of this year’s race have been defined and we see many of the Usual Suspects return to the docket:

• Iraq / Iran / war
• The economy
• Health Care
• Abortion
• Climate Change
• Immigration

Today I’ll pick Health Care and run with it.

So what’s the debate? Or, a more interesting question that is on my mind is, “What are the limits of the debate?”

Currently, when talking about health care, you have republicans making references to some magical free market influences and all of the front-runners are in favor of a “consumer-based system” of some kind. They toss around buzzwords like “deregulation” and extol their stalwart efforts to avoid “raising taxes.”

Democrats say different things and have different suggestions, but the “debate” never leaves a narrow channel of discourse. The Dem. front-runners talk about health care for all, a laudable goal. Their buzzwords are “government subsidy” and “repealing” or “ending” the Bush tax cuts to pay for their plans.

A few Dems share ideas with their counterparts across the aisle and push the notion that their plans are superior because their solutions offer a healthy number of health insurance choices for the American consumer. The tacit capitalist assumption here is that this large number of choices will promote competition and therefore keep the costs of health care reasonable.

Sure, there are some fringe views and different plans of attack regarding the Health Care Problem, but of course, the entire debate is predicated on a huge assumption: Paying a private company for health insurance is a necessary and legitimate practice.

Completely absent from the debate are challenges to this notion. Furthermore, any mention that our health care system is in shambles because of the extraordinarily high costs of paying a third party for a service they almost never make good on is just as taboo. There is no call by any of the front-running candidates to tear apart this illegal, corrupt and immoral institution despite the volumes of evidence we can all read about or, worse yet, may have experienced in our daily lives.

The story is typical: Americans pay their hard-earned money to these health insurance companies assuming that, when tragedy strikes, they will be covered. They will be safe. Of course, as hundreds of studies and thousands upon thousands of personal experiences have shown, the truth of the matter is quite the opposite. I’d even go as far as to say the average health insurance consumer is being cheated and outright abused. Anyone who has had to take an insurance company to task for an inappropriate denial of coverage or an outlandish bill will know exactly what I mean.

But we can’t bring this up. This isn’t an acceptable position to take within the “debate.” Instead, we’re supposed to choose the plan of a presidential hopeful that promises to drain the least amount of money from our pockets and marrow from our bones.

According to the limits of the discussion, the insurance companies have a right to exist… their function and place in society is assumed valid and useful even despite the horrendous track record of abuses, corruption and fraud that can be found with just a cursory examination of any of them. The moral issues… the human rights issues… are irrelevant and quietly dismissed before they can enter the discourse.

Maybe it’s time to change the scope of the discussion. There couldn’t be a better opportunity to put pressure on the candidates than now, while they are still duking it out amongst their peers for a shot at the title. Once the Primaries are over, each side will rest comfortably upon the ability to highlight the “differences” of their plan with their opponent and any thought of addressing the underlying assumption I’ve mentioned here will likely be lost entirely.

Waging a Successful War On Terror

Moved this post to a separate page.

Click here.

Bush’s Visit to Israel

I heard something very unexpected the other day on the way home. I was listening to NPR and caught a blurb taken from Bush’s speech regarding the Israeli/Palsetinian conflict. He mentioned the typical shit: Palestinians needing to stop their violence against the Israeli “defense” forces. Israel needing to halt any “unauthorized” new settlements. I made careful note that this was an unfortunate departure from the earlier rhetoric that called for an end to all new settlements. Essentially, Bush was once again providing a way for Isreal to shirk its obligations to the Palestinian people.

I felt my blood warming up in disgust as tends to be the case whenever I hear one of his blunderous performances. And then I heard something odd. A single word… that, for all intents and purposes, had no reason to appear in a Bush speech on the Mideast conflict.

He uttered the word, contiguous. Specifically, he said, “The vision of a Palestinian state is one of contiguous territory…. Swiss cheese isn’t going to work when it comes to the territory of a state.” Now, for anyone with any understanding of what Israel’s been doing for the last 40 years, these words are huge. “Swiss cheese” is a very good analogy, in fact, and to have Bush stand up and say it “isn’t going to work” means that I may have to concede that I, for once, agree with the guy. As much as it hurts me to say this… the guy is right this (one and only) time.

Now, do I think his speech will actually bring about an end to the apartheid-like condiditons that Israel has been imposing against the Palestinian people for the last 40 years? No. But… but… this single speech may spark the chance for a new vocabulary to enter the discourse, and that chance, while remote, is very significant. After all, sometimes finding the right words is all one needs to shift the thinking of those who might otherwise prefer to keep their eyes and ears closed.

Here’s hoping.