…to those who invoke the “ticking bomb” scenario when trying to justify torture approved and perpitrated by our government:

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.
   -Theodore Roosevelt

Recently, I was reading something on the web that mocked the marketing of policies with the statement, “we are engaged in a ‘war on (insert threatening noun here)’”. The target of the mocking was the utterly misnamed “war on terror”, the naming of which follows a dubious legacy left by the “war on drugs” and the “war on poverty”, neither of which has been very successful by any meaningful, objective measure. Given how I have to be precise in my use of language in my job (mis-description can cost us a lot of money), I become particularly irritated by the continual use of the phrase “war on terror” to describe what to most people started on September 11, 2001. That was not the first day of conflict (it was indeed the second time the New York World Trade Center towers had been subject to a terrorist attack), and our collective ignorance of the world played no small role in the ultimate origins of the attacks.

Calling our efforts to counter terrorists attacks a “war” is elevating criminal acts above their true station, but if we insist upon using the term “war” then a more proper name is the blowback war.

“Blowback” refers to how the actions of the United States in Afghanistan and other regions in efforts to stymie the Soviet Union ended up creating more enemies of the United States than friends.

Using the correct terms may be the only way we can gain in this conflict, but unfortunately we are only capable of focusing on the here and now, not the too recent past.

“I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.”
   -Will Rogers

That disorganization was certainly evident tonight in my precinct Democratic Party caucus. The photo above shows the most organized part of the evening, when people filed into the combination cafeteria/gym. There were questions about party rules regarding whether voters had to remain after signing in for their preferred candidate, and the Obama volunteers were loudly insisting their supporters remain so they could dominate the debate because the Clinton volunteers were supposedly going to challenge the vote count for delegates to the county convention.

It has been reported that the Clinton campaign was behind the curve in organizing for the caucuses in Texas, and that was evident in the lower numbers of Clinton volunteers than Obama volunteers, well out of proportion to the ratio of supporters of each candidate at the caucus. Unfortunately, the Obama volunteers were rather obnoxious, and the ill manners were not limited to the young cohort.

Eventually, after much commotion in setting up tables so that the disabled and those who had small children could have a shorter line to wait in before signing in their preference, a quasi-organization arose out of the confusion, and the registration of the caucus proceeded with reasonable smoothness. Although I have been hard on the Democratic Party organizers of the caucus, some acknowledgment must be made that at least ten times as many voters came to the caucus this year as compared to four years ago. Still, some better planning would have reduced the confusion.

Overall, it was an interesting experience, reminding me of how much I hate the inside maneuvering that is inherent in party politics.

Texas, a whole other country, that’s a slogan used to promote tourism a few years back, and there is more truth to it than most people realize. I live in Austin, which although it is the capital of the state does not really reflect the culture of the state as a whole. The main campus of the University of Texas is located in Austin, and both the students and the professors have a huge impact on the character of the city. Austin is much more liberal than the rest of the state, but that liberalism is tempered by a conservative streak that would seem contradictory but somehow makes sense here. The local support of Ron Paul is a result of this seeming dichotomy. There have been large signs, both printed and handmade, promoting Paul for President posted around town for months, even before the race truly began. Some of the posters have slogans that sound much like the ones we are now hearing from supporters of Barak Obama, with claims that Paul inspires hope.

In this strange political cycle, Texas is in the position of king-maker for the Democratic Party nomination, and it also may lock-up the nomination for John McCain on the Republican side. Ordinarily, Texas came too late to play any kind of role in the nominating process, and in the past few cycles has been considered a Republican stronghold in the general election, so the state tends to get ignored in campaigns beyond a potential source of donations. Not this year, with a nationally broadcast debate between the two Democratic contenders along with many public events, including a large, open air gathering of supporters of Barak Obama that closed down the center of Austin for an entire day.

Last night Senator Hillary Clinton held a “town hall” meeting at the Austin Convention Center followed by a campaign rally in the Berger Center, where many area high schools hold their graduation ceremonies along with using it for various indoor sports and other activities. I had the opportunity to attend the rally and hear Senator Clinton speak. It was very enlightening for me, because I found her a much more effective speaker than I expected, the short sound-bites typically included in the news shows do not convey the emotion that she obviously feels regarding public service. Despite my skepticism, and despite the widely held cynical view of her, she comes across as very genuine in what she wants to accomplish in terms of using government to help the less fortunate.

As the events of the last 8 years have illustrated, my mistrust of the Republican Party in preserving the rights of individuals against the powerful, such as corporations or even the government itself, was very well founded. The intolerance and religious zealotry endemic in the Republican Party has also disturbed me; the embracing of the endorsement of John Hagee by John McCain is a good example of how the party includes such tendencies. I tend to vote Democratic not because I have overwhelming support for the entirety of their platform, but because I feel they are less damaging than the Republicans. This year, my choice for whom to vote in the Texas Democratic primary has been difficult, because I do not like the appearance of political dynasty that would come from a victory by Senator Clinton. The roll of the Presidents starting in the 1980s would read Bush – Clinton – Bush – Clinton, which I do not believe would be healthy for our system of representative democracy. However, I have serious concerns about Senator Barak Obama in terms of both experience along with the feeling that there is more rhetoric than accomplishment behind his candidacy. I believe that only after many trips around the sun does one develop the judgment necessary for an office like President of the United States.

There is strong support for Senator Obama in Austin, likely reflecting the large student population of the University of Texas. I have seen people standing on street corners nowhere near early voting locations holding Obama for President signs. On my route in to work through a sparsely populated area, parked beside the road was an ancient RV with “Obama for President” painted on the front and a cowboy-hatted man standing on the roof with a handmade sign reading simply “Obama”. The Clinton supporters seem to be more targeted, clustering with signs and enthusiasm on curbs near the early-voting polls, and sending emails explaining the caucus process as practiced as part of the “Texas two-step primary”.

In Austin, at least, it seems to truly be coming down to the wire. It will be interesting to see what happens when I attend the caucus tonight.

…explained in 30 seconds by Russ Feingold:

I lived in France for just under two years. During that time the current version of FISA (which was just extended by voice vote for another 15 days to allow for more time to negotiate the next version) was in effect, and any of my phone calls home could have been monitored without judicial oversight, despite the fact I am an American citizen for whom no probable cause exists for any type of search.

“Trust us” wasn’t good enough for the founders, and it isn’t good enough for me.

The people I am most afraid of are those who are the most afraid.
   -Robert Frost

Let us take at face value the nominal, stated reasons as why various office-holders claim the have for taking their various actions.

So, President George W. Bush vetoes the recent renewal/expansion of the S-CHIP bill because he is concerned that it is “creeping socialism” that would ultimately result in publicly funded healthcare, which goes against the libertarian philosophy of self-sufficiency and avoiding governmental interference.

Yet, he promises also to veto any bill regarding the FISA courts and wiretapping statutes that limits the ability of the executive branch to monitor communications that the government claims are important to preventing “terrorists” from attacking.

In other words, do not trust the government to be involved at all in health care, but do trust the government to know when to and when to not monitor the activities, statements, communications, and other matters routinely regarded as private in order to “prevent terrorism”.

Do not trust the government when it comes to protecting collective heritages, such as the environment in the form of clean air, clean water in the rivers, and land preserved in its natural state, do not interfere with property rights, but it is OK to search citizens in the most personal way when they want to fly or have any other kind of interaction with the government such as attend court sessions.

Unfortunately, those in nominal opposition to George W. Bush are no better, promoting agendas that interfere with the rights of individuals when it comes to the “collective good” while decrying the individual invasions of quasi-impersonal searches using millimeter wave radar, which reveals in images far more than a pat down search without the indignity of having someone actually touch you in a far more invasive manner.

In the end, both the right and the left are hypocrites.

What we, the people, need to decide is what exactly is the role of government in our lives.

It has been publicly proclaimed by President George W. Bush that he feels that one of the primary goals of the United States’ government is to “protect the people from terrorists.”

Does that come under the fundamental right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the preamble? That assertion would be debatable at best if the “protection” involved the invasion of “liberty” explicitly stated because of a self-proclaimed power of the Presidency to declare any US citizen as an “enemy combatant” who can be imprisoned indefinitely with no appeal, no access to legal counsel, and subject to treatment that by any reasonable definition would be called torture.

By contrast, one of the largest goals of the Democrats has been to establish a nationally financed system of health care. This is invasive upon liberties because it would force those who have large incomes to pay for the medical care of those who do not have have the same level of income.

Is that fair?

It depends upon what factors one chooses to consider in your personal calculus.

Both the left and the right are now on paths that lead to creeping authoritarianism, where the government knows what is best for you, The only difference lies in whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not a “terrorist” who threatens the authority of the state and its protection of the collective good against “terrorism” or whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not engaged in any behaviors that are a threat to your own good or the collective good as defined in fuzzy terms such as health and societally good or bad behaviors ensuring conformance to the notion that it is good for you.

Many like to label themselves as “small ‘L’ libertarians” yet they continue to participate in the kabuki play that we call our representative democracy, assuming they choose to vote at all.

Is that sufficient?

I say it is not.

Thomas Jefferson warned against the very situation in which we find ourselves, and he stated flatly, in no uncertain terms, “The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots.”

Where are our patriots, who are not beholden to parties, but to ideals?

Ideals are worth dying for, parties and ideologies are not.

Are the ideas and ideals of 1776 and 1790 still too radical for the majority to fully understand?

I fear they are…

—

Related links that you can parse for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21205942/

http://www.courierpostonline.com/specialreports/statesecrets/m062403b.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2142155

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/01/012604.html

http://www.privacydigest.com/2007/09/20/state+secret+overreach+editorial+barry+siegel

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2006/05/70785?currentPage=2

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/09/1013076-supreme-court-refuses-torture-case

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3876/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/345/1/case.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=345&invol=1

…deny, deny, deny, with a big shout!

Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed.
   -Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)

The Wall Street Journal (posted online at OpinionJournal.com) betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the rule of law in an editorial on the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the applicability of part of the Geneva Conventions to the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States.

In the editorial Osama in Genevaland (subtitled Terrorists are now getting lawful-combatant legitimacy) they write:

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 govern the treatment of lawful combatants and civilians during wartime. But now a new Pentagon memorandum concludes that Common Article 3 of the Conventions also governs the treatment of unlawful combatants: pirates, drug mafias and especially terrorists. So, five years after 9/11, the U.S. is about to give to people who ram commercial jets into buildings many of the same legal privileges and immunities as the average GI.

This hyperbole makes the unstated assumption that everyone held by the United States as an “unlawful combatant” is indeed merting of that designation, despite the fact that there has been no process put in place to establish that status for prisoners. Through what means was it decided these people are “unlawful combatants” and who made that determination? Was it fair? Was it based on evidence, or merely hearsay?

This does not even address the basic flaw in the subtitle regarding giving legitimacy to terrorists, because we have already done so in our reaction to the murders of September 11, creating an inflated “War on Terror” from our fear and anger thereby giving the terrorists their victory and elevating them from a bunch of thugs to an “enemy of the homeland.”

We claim we are fighting against uncivilized opponents, yet we are throwing away the basis of our civilization when we ignore the principle of the rule of law when dealing with those we declare are our enemy.

Is each and every person at Guantanamo a terrorist? No, the release of some of the prisoners held there show that as in every human endeavor, mistakes were made. Once it was said, “better to let 1,000 of the guilty go free than condemn one who is innocent.” If this is no longer one of our fundamental beliefs, what level of collateral damage in the form of condeming those not guilty is acceptable? Remember, though, when you make this grim calculation, with every innocent punished for no reason we create not one but many enemies.

The end of our Pledge of Allegience states that we are a nation with “liberty and justice for all.” Depriving people of their liberty is one of the most feared powers of a government, and the arbitrary use of that power has sparked more revolutions than can be easily counted. This confers a grave responsibility to use that power through a system of justice that is understandable and fair, and if we feel the principles upon which our Constiution is based are fundamental in applying to all humanity, what does it say when we choose to ignore those principles when dealing with non-citizens?

The editorial is partially redeemed by this statement:

What the world needs is a new legal framework for distinguishing between legal and illegal combatants, but instead we are now heading toward the European model where terrorism is seen as just another fact of life and not a unique evil or grave threat. In Germany, the High Court earlier this year released from custody Mounir El Motassedeq, an accomplice of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, on a technicality. Germany may be able to afford such legal exquisiteness; as the main terror target, the U.S. and its citizens cannot.

Yet the call for a new legal framework is weakened by the complaint about “legal exquisiteness” for it is precisely that attention to the law that is what makes us civilized as compared to those who say they can do whatever they want to their enemies.

Fundamentally, the rule of law is not about selectively applying the law only to the lawful; it is about applying the law to the unlawful, preventing their unlawful nature and despicable acts from degrading our society and our civilization.

If we ignore the law or only apply it when it is convenient, what exactly differentiates our system from arbitrary rule?

Given that there are so many external dangers to the United States (which if the right-wing is to be believed includes an existential danger from Islamist terrorists that I believe has been exaggerated for political purposes), why is it that in pandering to the “Republican wing of the Republican party” the top priorities are to have Congress debate amendments aimed at limiting freedoms, namely an anti-gay-marriage amendment and an anti-flag-burning amendment?

Any rational, non-snarky answers would be greatly appreciated.

Technorati Tags: commentary, current events, opinion

It has been proclaimed by some that it is the “moral duty” of newspapers in “the West” to publish the cartoons that have been used by agitators and those with certain anti-Western agendas in the Arab world to inflame passions against the United States.

Yet many of similar political beliefs as those who proclaim this “moral duty” are decrying the publication by newspapers in “the West” of yet more photographs of the abuses at Abu Ghraib as “needlessly inflaming” that same Arab world.

Is morality truly so relative?

If it is, then should we ourselves not call for that which is called for by our enemies, the complete and total destruction of all who do not think and believe as we do?

Should we follow our enemies down the path which leads to the madness of nihilism?

Technorati Tags: Abu Ghraib, commentary, opinion

Years ago, when I was in graduate school, I developed a habit of going for a drive late at night on Christmas Eve, usually late enough that I was in the midst of my random, goal-less journey when Christmas Eve transitioned into Christmas Day. When I lived in Phoenix, there was not the cold in the air that people associate with the season, but there were still lights decorating houses. During one drive I saw a house standing alone out in the flat desert with not even a saguaro cactus standing nearby, the colored lights cheerfully forlorn in the desolate isolation.

Later in my life, when I lived in Portland, Oregon, I would go driving up the north side of the Columbia River Gorge, playing a game of rounding the corners at double the posted speed on the yellow signs warning of tight curves ahead. I had a Mitsubishi 3000 GT VR4, which had all-wheel-drive so it held the road very well, but was extremely unforgiving in poor road conditions because the car was heavy. The toughest curves where those marked as 40 and 45 mph, because the lateral g-forces at 90 mph made it tough to say in the seat, even with the seat-belt and supposed contoured seat-back. I would eventually reach a small town about 30 or 40 miles east of Portland, where I would cross the Columbia River and begin my drive west back to my house. The south side of the gorge was not quite as fun a drive, but it has a series of waterfalls that are very beautiful. I have some photos I took at night of the waterfalls that I am very proud of. Often I would stop and hike the short distance from the parking area to the Latourell Falls to watch the stars through the mist thrown up by the crashing of the water into the pool below.

After I divorced and moved to Austin I traveled to spend my Christmas in Memphis, where I grew up and where my parents still live. I would still go for a drive over midnight on Christmas Eve, usually going to the Mississippi River to gaze out over that mighty expanse of water as it flowed by.

All of these drives were taken alone, not even a voice on the radio for company but instead a CD of either the music from the “Charlie Brown Christmas” soundtrack or various instrumental versions of Christmas music in a minor key such as Carol of the Bells.