I'm not willing to settle for a mediocre Democratic president if we have the viable option of a great Democratic president.
1) Obama will be viable in the general election. Polls show that he fares better than Hillary in head to head matchups against every prospective Republican contender. He appeals more to independents and to self-identifying liberals. Hillary commands the votes of those who first and foremost identify with the Democratic Party establishment. For this reason, I believe, she also attracts much higher negative ratings in polls.
2) More importantly: words matter.
Americans love to rank things. Colleges. Sports teams. Sexiest people alive. When we rank our past presidents, as we inevitably do, we consistently choose the same man as the Greatest. Over the past century, we've come to the consensus that Abraham Lincoln did more for this nation than any other man.
Lincoln's government experience before winning the presidency: 8 years in the Illinois House of Representatives, and a single term in the U.S. House.
Other experience: lawyer.
What's on his memorial: his two greatest speeches (two of the greatest ever given).
Lincoln was an amazing president because he could unite the nation around great ideas, centered on hope, destiny, the hand of God, and the redemption of a nation. He convinced longtime opponents to work together in his cabinet, he was gracious, solemn, funny, and he channeled for embattled Americans the grave hope that we could one day reunite as one people.
His management of the war was hardly exemplary. Completely unready to "Lead on Day One", he let General McClellan and others get away with far too many defeats. I can only imagine what it must have been like to pick up a newspaper in those days and read of the abysmal failures of Lincoln's latest general. The war dragged on; far more people died than had to.
But Lincoln accomplished what his political opponents would not have: national reunification. How did he do it? With words. Words that still penetrate through history and shake us with righteous morality.
Lincoln's great challenge was a single great war. Alas, our world has grown more complex, and a great war overseas is today but one issue on a presidential agenda. However, we should not fool ourselves. Our response, as a people, to the challenges before us carry as much existential import to the future of America as the Civil War did in Lincoln's term. In times that test the soul of our nation, we should turn to a man with the power to unite us. We should turn to an orator.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Voting Strategically
I'm so used to voting strategically by now that I wonder if I'm starting to forget what I stand for.
I saw a Kucinich bumper sticker just now -- you know, "Strength through Peace." And I thought, "Yeah!" Isn't peace just an unarguably good thing? Why aren't any other presidential candidates talking about it? Because it doesn't sound "tough", that's why. Candidates, if they're "serious", have to be tough on this, tough on that. The amazing thing is that this essential quality of toughness is really a hanger-on from the 1950's when the crucial thing was to determine who would be toughest on communism. We still have this image of our President being in some sort of negotiation with the president of another country, and the tenor of his (translated) words, the look on his face, will make all the difference. He must never back down.
Of course, no one can picture Dennis Kucinich making Nikita Khrushchev crap his pants. And so we don't vote for him.
Nevertheless, Kucinich represents the values want in a President, far better than my stated choice, Obama, does (at least publicly). So as an exercise in honesty, I will hereby declare what I support, even though I'm not always going to vote for it:
Maybe I can use this list as a blueprint for further posts...
I saw a Kucinich bumper sticker just now -- you know, "Strength through Peace." And I thought, "Yeah!" Isn't peace just an unarguably good thing? Why aren't any other presidential candidates talking about it? Because it doesn't sound "tough", that's why. Candidates, if they're "serious", have to be tough on this, tough on that. The amazing thing is that this essential quality of toughness is really a hanger-on from the 1950's when the crucial thing was to determine who would be toughest on communism. We still have this image of our President being in some sort of negotiation with the president of another country, and the tenor of his (translated) words, the look on his face, will make all the difference. He must never back down.
Of course, no one can picture Dennis Kucinich making Nikita Khrushchev crap his pants. And so we don't vote for him.
Nevertheless, Kucinich represents the values want in a President, far better than my stated choice, Obama, does (at least publicly). So as an exercise in honesty, I will hereby declare what I support, even though I'm not always going to vote for it:
- abortion on demand
- unlimited legal immigration
- peace over war, almost always
- marriage for anyone who wants it, including polygamy (uncoerced, not like FLDS does)
- power to the states to control guns
- internationalism (a renewed commitment to international institutions and treaties)
- freedom of drug use
- free trade (getting rid of export subsidies, tariffs, etc.)
- fair trade (build workers' rights, the environment, etc. into every free trade agreement)
- a tight cap-and-trade system for GHG's
- higher and higher gasoline and diesel taxes, giving alternatives a chance to break in
- putting Yucca Mountain to use, but disallowing any more nuclear power plants until the waste issue is solved
- freedom of suicide for the terminally ill
- affordable health care, but with fewer resources going toward end-of-life care
- assumption of consent for organ donation
- real commitment to the long-term health of Social Security, Medicare, and other "entitlement" programs
- unilateral nuclear disarmament
- making executions humane, if not abolishing them
- wide-reaching laws for government transparency
- full protection from search and seizure without probable cause or a court-issued warrant
- an end to CAFO's
- aggressive protection of public lands, air, water, and endangered species
- true aid to developing nations, to make them less, not more, reliant on us
- high taxes on wealth, low taxes on corporations and small businesses
- stringent separation of church and state -- especially in matters of science and education
Maybe I can use this list as a blueprint for further posts...
Friday, January 4, 2008
In Defense of Unfair Primaries
Looks like the New York Times is the latest to argue for a revamped primary process. This talk is based on a common complaint that comes up every year: Why do Iowans and New Hampshirites get do decide who the party nominates? Why not me? New Yorkers and Louisianans deserve an equal vote.
Two new processes have been proposed to make the system more fair:
1) Divide the states into regional blocs. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. Rotate the order of the blocs each election cycle.
2) Divide the states into blocs based on population. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. The small-state blocs vote before the large-state blocs.
And that's all well and good. The first plan would introduce a new kind of caprice into the process, since the nomination could hang on which regions come early in the rotation for that election year. But it's harly less capricious than the current system.
More importantly, these new processes, and the complaint of unfairness upon which they are founded, miss the point of what a primary should be designed to do. "One man, one vote" is a fundamental principle of a democratic election, it is true. But these are not elections to office, they are merely contests for nomination, in which the U.S. government plays no active role. Therefore, a different principle than "one man, one vote" applies in this instance: freedom of association.
These are parties, not governments. If you believe that your party should do everything lawful, honorable, and honest in its power to win the presidential election and elect someone who generally agrees with your positions on the issues, you should also believe the party should set up primaries to do the following:
1) Minimize party infighting and unify the party around a candidate.
2) Maximize the likelihood that the the winner of the primaries will beat the nominee of the opposing party.
3) Generate fanfare and excitement about the process, the party, the choices, and the nominee.
The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries accomplish these objectives very, very well. By holding them in relatively conservative states, the party increases the likelihood of a moderate, electable candidate. The early primaries do an incredible job of narrowing the field and fostering unity absolutely as soon as is practical. And whatever you say about the Iowa caucuses, you can't say they don't produce a truly incredible amount of fanfare.
I don't see the new proposals accomplishing these objectives as well. Particularly, the regional-bloc solution would do a horrible job of uniting the party, and could even splinter it (informally, of course). Plus, it makes no sense to have NY, MA, and ME making the first choice -- ever. As much as I'm an Edmund Muskie fan, it makes no sense from here on out. The population-bloc proposal would give excessive sway to libertarian states, to the disadvantage of the sort of populist campaign (or even establishment campaign) that normally does better. By having lots of states making different decisions at the same time, the party would be reducing the chance of unity and increasing the chances of a brokered convention -- historically very divisive and opaque ways of making nominations.
The current process is not perfect. Especially after this cycle, it's clear it needs tinkering. The front-loading and early-February clumping need to go, and maybe the parties should introduce some rotation into the schedule. Minor changes to keep it fresh without messing too much with what works.
I live in Montana, and I'm a Democrat. I vote at the butt end of the primary season: June 3, the same as South Dakota. My vote will mean less than my emails to comments@whitehouse.gov. Yes, the primary calendar is unfair. I just care more about electing a Democrat.
Two new processes have been proposed to make the system more fair:
1) Divide the states into regional blocs. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. Rotate the order of the blocs each election cycle.
2) Divide the states into blocs based on population. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. The small-state blocs vote before the large-state blocs.
And that's all well and good. The first plan would introduce a new kind of caprice into the process, since the nomination could hang on which regions come early in the rotation for that election year. But it's harly less capricious than the current system.
More importantly, these new processes, and the complaint of unfairness upon which they are founded, miss the point of what a primary should be designed to do. "One man, one vote" is a fundamental principle of a democratic election, it is true. But these are not elections to office, they are merely contests for nomination, in which the U.S. government plays no active role. Therefore, a different principle than "one man, one vote" applies in this instance: freedom of association.
These are parties, not governments. If you believe that your party should do everything lawful, honorable, and honest in its power to win the presidential election and elect someone who generally agrees with your positions on the issues, you should also believe the party should set up primaries to do the following:
1) Minimize party infighting and unify the party around a candidate.
2) Maximize the likelihood that the the winner of the primaries will beat the nominee of the opposing party.
3) Generate fanfare and excitement about the process, the party, the choices, and the nominee.
The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries accomplish these objectives very, very well. By holding them in relatively conservative states, the party increases the likelihood of a moderate, electable candidate. The early primaries do an incredible job of narrowing the field and fostering unity absolutely as soon as is practical. And whatever you say about the Iowa caucuses, you can't say they don't produce a truly incredible amount of fanfare.
I don't see the new proposals accomplishing these objectives as well. Particularly, the regional-bloc solution would do a horrible job of uniting the party, and could even splinter it (informally, of course). Plus, it makes no sense to have NY, MA, and ME making the first choice -- ever. As much as I'm an Edmund Muskie fan, it makes no sense from here on out. The population-bloc proposal would give excessive sway to libertarian states, to the disadvantage of the sort of populist campaign (or even establishment campaign) that normally does better. By having lots of states making different decisions at the same time, the party would be reducing the chance of unity and increasing the chances of a brokered convention -- historically very divisive and opaque ways of making nominations.
The current process is not perfect. Especially after this cycle, it's clear it needs tinkering. The front-loading and early-February clumping need to go, and maybe the parties should introduce some rotation into the schedule. Minor changes to keep it fresh without messing too much with what works.
I live in Montana, and I'm a Democrat. I vote at the butt end of the primary season: June 3, the same as South Dakota. My vote will mean less than my emails to comments@whitehouse.gov. Yes, the primary calendar is unfair. I just care more about electing a Democrat.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Regarding "Illegals"
A letter from me to the New York Times:
The New York Times recently refered to individuals who come illegally to this country as "illegals" themselves ("GOP Hopefuls Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk," Dec. 9). While I recognize the Times's need to use language reflecting the current American vernacular, I am furious that one respectable news source after another has given in to using "illegal" as a noun. We must remember that we are talking about people who broke our laws only to take part in the prosperity and freedom we mostly take for granted. They immigrated illegally. Calling them "illegals" rejects their more important status -- as human beings.
The New York Times recently refered to individuals who come illegally to this country as "illegals" themselves ("GOP Hopefuls Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk," Dec. 9). While I recognize the Times's need to use language reflecting the current American vernacular, I am furious that one respectable news source after another has given in to using "illegal" as a noun. We must remember that we are talking about people who broke our laws only to take part in the prosperity and freedom we mostly take for granted. They immigrated illegally. Calling them "illegals" rejects their more important status -- as human beings.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Bush Administration's Response to Musharraf's Military Rule
Hitting the Mute Button on the Freedom Agenda
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, November 6, 2007; A02
Just last Thursday, President Bush spoke of his Freedom Agenda spreading democracy across the globe: "We are standing with those who yearn for liberty."
Yesterday, the Bush administration unveiled a pragmatic new foreign policy: The Stand by Your Man Agenda.
In the intervening period, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a U.S. ally, had suspended his country's constitution, arrested Supreme Court judges, closed media outlets, and beat or imprisoned demonstrators by the hundreds -- using some of his billions of dollars in American military aid to impose martial law.
Bush's Freedom Agenda frowns upon these activities -- and yet Bush and his aides acted yesterday as if Musharraf had made an illegal right on red, or perhaps parked in a handicapped space.
"What we think we ought to be doing is using our various forms of influence at this point in time to help a friend, who we think has done something ill-advised," one of Bush's top aides declared from the podium in the White House briefing room.
"The question is, what do you do when someone makes a mistake that is a close ally?" the official argued. "The president's guidance to us is see if we can work with them to get back on track."
So would there be consequences for Musharraf's misbehavior? "That's going to depend heavily on what we hear, obviously, from the Pakistani government," he said, making sure to add: "And that is not a threat in any way."
It didn't even rise to a diplomatic slap on the wrist -- and Bush aides must have realized this was not something to be proud of. Before the official briefed reporters from behind the microphone, an aide removed the oval White House seal from the lectern. And the White House ordered that the official, though he has appeared on the Sunday television talk shows, speak anonymously.
"Can we make it on the record?" the Associated Press's Terry Hunt asked at the start of the briefing.
"No," replied White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "The president has spoken on the record."
Indeed he had -- no more forcefully than Mr. Anonymous.
"With respect to Pakistan, it is also our desire to see a return to democracy in the shortest time possible," Bush announced in the Oval Office. "I hope now that he hurry back to elections," he added.
And what happens if Musharraf ignores Bush's hopes and desires? "Hypothetical question," Bush replied.
Did Bush misjudge Musharraf? No answer.
It has been a humbling few days for the administration and its attempts to exercise American power. Last week, Bush aides begged Musharraf not to suspend the constitution -- and he ignored them. Similarly, Bush met in the Oval Office yesterday with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, urging him not to send troops into Iraq to fight Kurdish militants -- and Erdogan evidently gave him no commitment.
"In an environment where international support and cooperation does not exist, Turkey, quite naturally, will exercise its own right to protect itself and its people against terrorism," the prime minister, echoing some of Bush's own "war on terror" language, told the National Press Club after his meeting with the president.
The defiance by Musharraf and, to a lesser extent, Erdogan, left Bush and his aides sounding like representatives of a pitiful giant.
"We made it clear to [Musharraf] that we would hope he wouldn't have declared the emergency powers he declared," said Bush.
White House press secretary Dana Perino voiced her "hope" that Pakistan will proceed with elections.
And Mr. Anonymous mentioned his hopes eight times in his 40 minutes with reporters. "We hope that we'll get some clarification on the intentions of the government in the next few days. . . . We are hopeful that we will see some clarification. . . . We hope they will do that."
Missing were the serious diplomatic words such as "outrageous" and "unacceptable." In their place were gentle sentiments such as "unfortunate" and "disappointed" and, two dozen times, "concern." The concern was so slight, though, that the official admitted that Bush hadn't even spoken directly with Musharraf.
Elaine Quijano of CNN asked about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's charge that Bush had sacrificed democracy for Musharraf's help against terrorists.
The official replied that Pakistan was "emblematic of the president's strategy generally."
USA Today's David Jackson asked if this might be termed "a setback for the Freedom Agenda."
"We don't know, because we don't know how this story comes out," Mr. Anonymous said.
Cox News's Ken Herman asked if Bush was giving Musharraf a deadline for action.
"No," the official replied.
Steven Myers of the New York Times said that the administration seemed "to have had very little influence" on Musharraf."
"We have a lot of influence," the official replied, "but we don't dictate."
Speak softly and carry a slender reed: It's a key component of the Stand by Your Man Agenda.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Lies from Denny Rehberg
I got this response from my Congressman, regarding legislation to protect LGBT individuals from employment discrimination:
Dear Daniel:
Thanks for contacting me regarding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (H.R. 2015). It's good to hear from you.
As you know, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 was introduced on April 24, 2007 by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA). This act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint-labor management committees.
I oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 because the non-discriminatory policy of federal statutes should be equally applied to all citizens. While this bill would do nothing to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, it would increase uncertainty for Montana small business owners who will have to endure vague definitions of the "perceived" characteristics of their employees.
In addition, I also have concerns that this language does not protect the hiring prerogatives of religious schools. Under current law, the Civil Rights Act provides hiring protections for religious corporations, associations, societies, and educational institutions. This legislation fails to include these protections.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this matter. For more information and to sign up for my e-newsletter, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/rehberg. Keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Denny Rehberg
Montana's Congressman
Hmm. "[T]he non-discriminatory policy of federal statutes should be equally applied to all citizens." Someone please tell me what this means. Please.
While I think religious schools, like any other schools, should be barred from discrimination, the bill does omit these schools, etc. from the protections it provides. It's right in the bill: "This Act shall not apply to a religious organization." But that's vague, you say. No, because "religious organization" is precisely defined in the bill. Check it out, if you like: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3685.
Denny Rehberg is my Congressman, and I am ashamed that he is using blatant lies as tools to continue unfair treatment of LGBT Americans.
Dear Daniel:
Thanks for contacting me regarding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (H.R. 2015). It's good to hear from you.
As you know, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 was introduced on April 24, 2007 by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA). This act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint-labor management committees.
I oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 because the non-discriminatory policy of federal statutes should be equally applied to all citizens. While this bill would do nothing to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, it would increase uncertainty for Montana small business owners who will have to endure vague definitions of the "perceived" characteristics of their employees.
In addition, I also have concerns that this language does not protect the hiring prerogatives of religious schools. Under current law, the Civil Rights Act provides hiring protections for religious corporations, associations, societies, and educational institutions. This legislation fails to include these protections.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this matter. For more information and to sign up for my e-newsletter, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/rehberg. Keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Denny Rehberg
Montana's Congressman
Hmm. "[T]he non-discriminatory policy of federal statutes should be equally applied to all citizens." Someone please tell me what this means. Please.
While I think religious schools, like any other schools, should be barred from discrimination, the bill does omit these schools, etc. from the protections it provides. It's right in the bill: "This Act shall not apply to a religious organization." But that's vague, you say. No, because "religious organization" is precisely defined in the bill. Check it out, if you like: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3685.
Denny Rehberg is my Congressman, and I am ashamed that he is using blatant lies as tools to continue unfair treatment of LGBT Americans.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Too Far
I am enraged. Twice today. This doesn't happen often with me; I'm normally a pretty levelheaded guy, not quick to anger. Two things today pushed me over the edge and upset my stomach. I am suddenly quite worried about the possibility that the Bush Administration is bringing us -- very literally -- to fascism.
1) Captain Pat McCarthy, the government's lead council at Guantanamo, came on the 11/1/07 Fresh Air to rebut a lawyer for one of the detainees.
A) McCarthy emphasized that detention conditions are really good these days. Detainees get three meals a day (whether they want them or not. Hunger-striking prisoners are force-fed. And not the way doctors do it; 110 cm tubes are excruciatingly shoved up the detainee's nose. This brutal method is employed to make hunger-straking "inconvenient".). Detainees get at least two hours outdoor rereation per day, and are even allowed to talk to the prisoner in the area next to them. In response to a question about a UN report describing terrible living conditions for the detainees, McCarthy proclaimed that he was not familiar with the report. Instead, he said that if three meals a day and outdoor recreation was torture, we should consider revising our definition of torture so as not to cheapen the word.
B) Lawyers for detainees are not permitted to take notes or recordings out of Guantanamo. Instead they must wait as any notes they take are forwarded to DC to be read over by representatives of the U.S. Government, who redact anything they please. Employee-client privilege, anyone? In response, McCarthy noted that lawyers had to sign an agreement to this process in order to be let into Guantanamo. If they disagreed, they should not have signed.
C) The detainee's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, cited a study from Seton Hall that 95% of Guantanamo detainees were not apprehended by U.S. military in the first place. They were instead brought to the Americans by Pakistani and Afghan authorities. These governments had issued general bounties for people to turn in anyone who they claimed was a terrorist. Therefore, shouldn't there be more skepticism toward the evidence against the detainees? No. McCarthy responded by claiming that the Seton Hall study was flawed, inaccurate. Why? Because it did not include -- wait for it -- classified information. West Point did a different study, he said, using classified information, that yielded different results. He didn't specify the results, and he was also wrong about the West Point study -- it didn't include classified info.
D) McCarthy said we shouldn't trust what Smith says, because, after all, he represents a Guantanamo detainee. Hmmm. Who else from the outside talk with the detainees, but the lawyers? And who do you represent, Captain McCarthy?
2) General Pervez Musharraf has essentially declared martial law, suspended Pakistan's constitution, and dismissed the Supreme Court. He seems to care more about defending his own regime against fair democratic process than he cares about rooting out terrorists/ He is using the military as a means of political oppression. So what, as the leaders of the free world, do we do about it? Continue to donate billions of dollars to Pakistan's military.
9/11 was a tragedy. Our actions as a nation in the aftermath of 9/11 have been a far greater tragedy. We are responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. We are tearing apart the Constitution in a futile attempt to ensure security. We are treating foreigners as if their lives and liberty did not matter, simply because they are not American. We support brutal regimes. We mock international institutions. We dismiss fairness and justice as impediments to our own sense of protection against "another 9/11."
Here's Captain McCarthy: "This is a question for the American people. How are we going to detain guys who we pick up who we know to be threats? That's a big, that's a big issue. Should we bring 'em to the United States, should we set 'em free, should we give 'em a little stipend and thank 'em for their job, maybe they can come back and do a better job next time? I don't know what it is, but this is not a question only for the military....But the way on terror -- on September the 11th it became a question for all Americans, and every American's got to ask that question, and they've got to bear the responsibility for the outcome of their answer."
Captain McCarthy, President Bush: Here's my answer, carefully considered. If we believe in freedom, if we believe in our concept of justice as an ideal and not just a bullshit requirement that restrains the government from putting people behind bars, we should treat people of other nationalities as if they had exactly the same rights Americans do. Try them in criminal court. Try them as war criminals. We were strong enough as a nation to do this at Nuremberg, to our great credit. We can do it again. Inevitably, some bona fide terrorists will be acquitted. Humans are imperfect, and unjust acquittals are the bitter price of a just system. I consider this a small price to pay, given the stakes.
1) Captain Pat McCarthy, the government's lead council at Guantanamo, came on the 11/1/07 Fresh Air to rebut a lawyer for one of the detainees.
A) McCarthy emphasized that detention conditions are really good these days. Detainees get three meals a day (whether they want them or not. Hunger-striking prisoners are force-fed. And not the way doctors do it; 110 cm tubes are excruciatingly shoved up the detainee's nose. This brutal method is employed to make hunger-straking "inconvenient".). Detainees get at least two hours outdoor rereation per day, and are even allowed to talk to the prisoner in the area next to them. In response to a question about a UN report describing terrible living conditions for the detainees, McCarthy proclaimed that he was not familiar with the report. Instead, he said that if three meals a day and outdoor recreation was torture, we should consider revising our definition of torture so as not to cheapen the word.
B) Lawyers for detainees are not permitted to take notes or recordings out of Guantanamo. Instead they must wait as any notes they take are forwarded to DC to be read over by representatives of the U.S. Government, who redact anything they please. Employee-client privilege, anyone? In response, McCarthy noted that lawyers had to sign an agreement to this process in order to be let into Guantanamo. If they disagreed, they should not have signed.
C) The detainee's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, cited a study from Seton Hall that 95% of Guantanamo detainees were not apprehended by U.S. military in the first place. They were instead brought to the Americans by Pakistani and Afghan authorities. These governments had issued general bounties for people to turn in anyone who they claimed was a terrorist. Therefore, shouldn't there be more skepticism toward the evidence against the detainees? No. McCarthy responded by claiming that the Seton Hall study was flawed, inaccurate. Why? Because it did not include -- wait for it -- classified information. West Point did a different study, he said, using classified information, that yielded different results. He didn't specify the results, and he was also wrong about the West Point study -- it didn't include classified info.
D) McCarthy said we shouldn't trust what Smith says, because, after all, he represents a Guantanamo detainee. Hmmm. Who else from the outside talk with the detainees, but the lawyers? And who do you represent, Captain McCarthy?
2) General Pervez Musharraf has essentially declared martial law, suspended Pakistan's constitution, and dismissed the Supreme Court. He seems to care more about defending his own regime against fair democratic process than he cares about rooting out terrorists/ He is using the military as a means of political oppression. So what, as the leaders of the free world, do we do about it? Continue to donate billions of dollars to Pakistan's military.
9/11 was a tragedy. Our actions as a nation in the aftermath of 9/11 have been a far greater tragedy. We are responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. We are tearing apart the Constitution in a futile attempt to ensure security. We are treating foreigners as if their lives and liberty did not matter, simply because they are not American. We support brutal regimes. We mock international institutions. We dismiss fairness and justice as impediments to our own sense of protection against "another 9/11."
Here's Captain McCarthy: "This is a question for the American people. How are we going to detain guys who we pick up who we know to be threats? That's a big, that's a big issue. Should we bring 'em to the United States, should we set 'em free, should we give 'em a little stipend and thank 'em for their job, maybe they can come back and do a better job next time? I don't know what it is, but this is not a question only for the military....But the way on terror -- on September the 11th it became a question for all Americans, and every American's got to ask that question, and they've got to bear the responsibility for the outcome of their answer."
Captain McCarthy, President Bush: Here's my answer, carefully considered. If we believe in freedom, if we believe in our concept of justice as an ideal and not just a bullshit requirement that restrains the government from putting people behind bars, we should treat people of other nationalities as if they had exactly the same rights Americans do. Try them in criminal court. Try them as war criminals. We were strong enough as a nation to do this at Nuremberg, to our great credit. We can do it again. Inevitably, some bona fide terrorists will be acquitted. Humans are imperfect, and unjust acquittals are the bitter price of a just system. I consider this a small price to pay, given the stakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
