23 November 2008
22 November 2008
THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT TORTURE…
1935 by Jeff HessWhat is so difficult about that simple statement? As a matter of policy, for all but the eight years under President George Bush, the official and real position of the United States of America has been and should always be that we are a nation of Law. That we hold our legal system to be the dearest assurance of our Constitutional freedoms is nearly as central to our being as our Constitution itself.
Jack Bauer is nothing but an obscene fantasy.
On his first day in office, in the first hour of that first day, President-elect Barack Hussein Obama must restore the honor of our nation so glibly cast aside by President Bush and with the stroke of his pen, close the prison and torture facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and all such facilities wherever they may exist in the world.
Cleaning up President Bush’s mess will be difficult. Making right all the wrongs he perpetrated in our name will take months, perhaps years, but the first step must be to transfer all inmates to prisons in the United States and then begin the process of sorting out how we can make all this right.
Benjamin Wittes, in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, attempts to demonstrate how difficult this might be; indeed, he attempts to make the case that it may not be possible.
I call Bull Shit.
Solving the Guantanamo problem means making important decisions about detention policy in combating terrorism more generally: When, if ever, should the United States engage in preventive detention of terrorism suspects? If and when it does, should it treat them as enemy combatants under the laws of war or under some other body of law, perhaps a new detention statute? What rights should they have? What should the government have to prove about them, to what standard of proof, and in what sort of forum?
These are questions to be considered only after we close down our torture chambers and all the individuals are in U.S. prisons receiving the same treatment as any other individual incarcerated under our laws.
There are three major groups of detainees at Guantanamo, each presenting distinct policy problems. For starters, there are detainees who could face trial. Most people regard criminal prosecution as the best means of neutralizing terrorism suspects and justifying their long-term detention, and some people regard trial as the only legitimate means of locking up America’s enemies. But how big is the group that might plausibly face charges? And to what extent does its size depend on which forum the government uses for prosecution? Is it a much smaller group if America tries these people in federal courts or courts-martial than if it continues using President Bush’s much-derided military commissions? Without knowing the answer to these questions, one cannot accurately assess the costs and benefits of America’s trial options.
Second, roughly 60 detainees have been cleared for release or transfer from Guantanamo but are stuck there because of fears of mistreatment at the hands of their own governments. Will Obama have an easier time than Bush in persuading third countries to accept these detainees, particularly if he accepts a few of them into the United States? That may well be the case, but without serious diplomatic engagement over the question, we simply can’t know how intractable this problem will prove to be. The ruling yesterday by a federal judge in Washington that five of six detainees in one case were held unlawfully raises the additional question of how many detainees should simply be released.
Third and most troublesome are the detainees too dangerous to be released but who cannot face criminal charges. How many, if any, this group contains will ultimately shape Obama’s policy. Detainees who pose a grave national security threat might be unprosecutable for a variety of reasons: because of deficiencies in the criminal law as it stood in 2001, because evidence against them would not stand up in court, because the government might not have enough evidence to convict or because it obtained key evidence under coercive conditions. If there are only a few such detainees, and the danger they pose seems manageable, those of us who have advocated a preventive detention system should reconsider our position. On the other hand, some human rights advocates acknowledge privately that they may reconsider their categorical opposition to preventive detention if the group proves substantial and the danger it poses too significant to ignore. Right now, we can only guess at this group’s size.
No guessing. No hand wringing. No consideration of correct policy.
Fly the transport planes in. Load up the prisoners. And let due process begin.
Not doing this will ultimately do more damage to our nation than the unacceptable alternative.
22 November 2008
WHAT THEY SAID…
1845 by Jeff HessThe dishonesty inherent in that approach runs right through [Shelby] Steele. Conservatives who give this dude a platform to basically call the president-elect of the United States an Uncle Tom (what else is a bargainer?) are not serious. I’ve said my piece many times on Steele, but I guess it bears repeating. Here is a dude who repeatedly argued that white guilt was causing us to lose the Iraq War. Who subtitled his book “Why Obama Can’t Win” and now plans to take that subtitle off in future editions. I am thinking out loud here: What is this if not intellectual cowardice? How are these cats not running a hustle? In what time are we living when the president is smarter, and more nuanced in his analysis, than the people charged with analyzing him?
22 November 2008
MY COMMENTS…
1702 by Jeff Hess22 November 2008
22 November 2008
22 November 2008
21 November 2008
GONE THINKING…
1702 by Jeff Hess
electronic until 1701 tomorrow as I continue my going out from Egypt.
21 November 2008
21 November 2008
21 November 2008
21 November 2008
21 November 2008
21 November 2008
WHAT THEY SAID…
0742 by Jeff HessPeople often compared Obama’s crowds to McCain’s. The real difference is McCain’s crowds, at the end, weren’t there to support him–they were there because they believed Obama was a Muslim. Obama didn’t draw 70,000 people who hated McCain, he drew 70,000 people who–mock them if you want–loved him. McCain’s mob never loved him, they just hated a specter of the dude he was running against. Joe the Plumber has always been that rambling fool at the end of the bar. But McCain gave the fool a platform. How fitting that he’s using it to now spit on McCain.
21 November 2008
THE PEACE OF WILD THINGS…
0730 by Jeff HessWhen despair grows in me
and I wake in the middle of the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting for their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.By Wendell Berry
I need a Walden Puddle…
21 November 2008
20 November 2008
WHAT THEY SAID…
1549 by Jeff HessIn exchange for government aid, the Big Three’s creditors, shareholders, and executives should be required to accept losses as large as they’d endure under chapter 11, and the UAW should agree to some across-the-board wage and benefit cuts. The resulting savings, combined with the bailout, should be enough to allow the Big Three to shift production to more fuel efficient cars while keeping almost all its current workforce employed. Ideally, major parts suppliers would adhere to the same conditions.
Remember: The underlying goal is to help Americans through this crisis and come out of it with a stronger economy.
And what a tragedy it would be if the government spends so much on these bailouts there isn’t enough money left for the next administration to help average people get affordable health insurance, send their kids to good schools, and find good jobs — including jobs rebuilding the nation’s crumbling infrastructure and finding alternative sources of energy.
It’s not the big guys who need rescuing. It’s the small. Right now, the government has its priorities upside down.
