American Foreign Policy Scripted by Dead German Writers?

A recent headline, “Snuff out militant Islam’s lethal spark – kill bin Laden,” brought to mind a friend’s story about a graduate student he’d once had. This student had felt himself seriously wronged somewhere in the academic process and appeared obsessed with vindication. My friend’s prescription was that he should read “Michael Kohlhaas,” a novella by German writer Heinrich von Kleist.  Since the student’s field was modern American history, the main concern was not the study of literature but the story’s theme – the potential self destructiveness of the drive for revenge, even if a person is actually in the right. Joel Brinkley, the author of the article with the inflamed headline, looked like he might benefit from the same medicine.  And, unfortunately, he’s far from the only one.

When the legal system fails to provide Kleist’s protagonist (based on a real life figure of 250 years earlier) with proper redress after he is wronged by a minor noble, Kohlhaas decides to take matters into his own hands. Eventually he will burn the noble’s house down and raise a private army to repeatedly attack the city of Wittenberg in his attempt to capture the man. His wife will die of injuries sustained in the pursuit of his goal and Martin Luther and the Kaiser in Vienna will become personally involved in the matter. At the very end, he does find that some measure of justice has been done. Unfortunately, that realization comes as he is being led to his beheading.

There was a point when Brinkley, a former New York Times writer now teaching journalism at Stanford, would have raised few eyebrows in writing, “Right now, the most effective thing the United States could do to turn the tide in the so-called war on terror is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, the terrorists’ shining symbol.” But that point was eight years, two wars, ten of thousands of casualties, and a trillion dollars ago. Today, such writing conveys the obsession of a real-life Michael Kohlhaas who wants to go on and on and on in pursuit of his concept of justice. Of bin Laden he writes, “We know where he is, more or less [sic],” but “Pakistan refuses to go after him.” His solution?  “I’m not talking about an invasion. Infiltrate the region with special-operations forces.”

How many countries can there be, I wondered, where a journalist writing that sending armed personnel into another country does not constitute an invasion will not be asked to seek professional help? But at least Brinkley does recognize that the Pakistanis might see things a little differently: “Let them scream,” he writes, “Over almost a decade, we have given Pakistan every chance to do the job. Now it’s time to do it ourselves.”

What seems to bother Brinkley most is that “Today, bin Laden must wake up every morning with a smile on his face for all he has inspired.” This he may well do, but probably not quite for the reasons Brinkley thinks.  Bin Laden’s stated goal, let us remember, it to maneuver the United States into a global war against Islam that will spiral out of control. So he’d have every reason to smile if he read an article like Brinkley’s. Ultimately, it’s not columnists like Brinkley who matter, though, but the Kohlhaasian spirit that seems to drive our foreign policy.  After all, while much of the country once dismissed George W. Bush as a hopeless, misguided warmonger and embraced Barack Obama as a peace candidate, this second post-9/11 President appears at least as committed to globalizing this war as his predecessor, if perhaps in somewhat different directions.  From the point of view of tying the U.S. down in endless war, what’s not to like?

But if the strategy of that war seem like something Kleist might have imagined, the tactics bring to mind a far better remembered German writer – Franz Kafka, the rare author influential enough to have his name turned into an adjective. While there are probably as many different definitions of “Kafkaesque” as there are readers of Kafka – and maybe more – “incomprehensibly complex, bizarre, or illogical” will probably do as well as any.  But whatever your personal definition of Kafkaesque may be, American military operations in and over Pakistan will probably fit it.

The current centerpiece of that campaign appears to be a program of missile strikes aimed at “terrorist leaders” from unmanned “Predator” drone planes flying above the country. Officially, though, there is no such program and as a spokesperson for the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says, “We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature.”

The New York Times reports the strikes are “carried out from a secret base in Pakistan and controlled by satellite link from C.I.A. headquarters in Virginia.”  The government of Pakistan regularly denounces them as a violation of its sovereignty. Unnamed U.S. officials claim there is an understanding under which the Pakistani government allows the U.S. to carry out the strikes while the U.S. allows the Pakistanis to publicly denounce the attacks. The government of Pakistan denies this.

Unnamed U.S. intelligence officials frequently name figures they claim have been killed in the strikes. A recent target was Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, whom, the Washington Post says, “a senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity” called “one of the worst people on the planet.”  As you might expect, this non-existent program is rather unpopular among the people of the country where its targets live: a Gallup Pakistan poll found it with 9 percent support among the Pakistani population.

The uncertain level of civilian casualties is a growing concern. A United Nations rights investigator complains that “the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws.” Unnamed sources within the U.S. government privately assure reporters that civilian deaths are lower than reported. One unnamed government official told the New York Times that the drone strikes are “the purest form of self-defense.”  The C.I.A. had no comment on a report that the private security contractor formerly known as Blackwater – now Xe Services LLC – was involved in the work of actually placing the bombs on the drones.  An unnamed defense official denied it to The Nation magazine – “on background.”

In response to repeated questions about the unacknowledged drone strike campaign at a press conference in Pakistan, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would only say that “there is a war going on.” She did not specify to which war she referred. The United States Government acknowledges being at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not in Pakistan. Appearing at a memorial service for seven CIA operatives killed in Afghanistan, some of whom were thought to be involved in the planning of the Pakistan drone strikes, President Barack Obama exhorted hundreds of their colleagues “to win this war.”  He also did not specify of which war he was speaking.

In regard to the acknowledged war in Afghanistan, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said, “The Taliban, we recognize, are part of the political fabric of Afghanistan at this point.” He did not say at exactly which point this recognition occurred; the U.S. overthrew the Taliban government eight years ago and has been at war with the organization ever since. Gates went on to say that “The question is whether they are prepared to play a legitimate role in the political fabric of Afghanistan going forward, meaning participating in elections, meaning not assassinating local officials and killing families.” He did not say whether a simple denial of involvement in assassinations and other killings – on or off the record – would suffice in place of an actual cessation of such activities. Nor did he speak to the question as to when various Taliban officials might be removed from the United Nations “terrorist blacklist” that currently prohibits the Afghanistan government from negotiating with them.

I have to think Kleist and Kafka would have loved this material.

Oh, Massachusetts!

There’s sure been enough harsh talk around the health care bills coming out of the House and Senate – and I mean from people who support universal health insurance – forget the Tea Baggers and the Rush Limbaugh audience for the moment. On the one hand, you’ve got people calling for unseating Representative John Conyers because he voted for the final House bill – and he was the prime sponsor of the single payer bill! On the other, there’s people dismissing any objections to the bills’ shortcomings as the cavalier nitpickings of a privileged group that already has health insurance and doesn’t really care much about anyone else who doesn’t. But the hyperbole crown has got to go to the blogger who produced the headline “Raul Grijalva Flirting With History’s Greatest Monster Status.” And what crime did the Arizona Representative and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair commit to join the ranks of Hitler, Stalin, and Attila? Why, he said that instead of passing the Senate bill as is, the House should send the Senate smaller individual bills that wouldn’t include items such a tax on pre-existing health insurance plans. Imagine that!

The voters of Massachusetts have lately become notorious for forcing a total tactical regrouping on the national health care debate by electing a Republican to finish Ted Kennedy’s Senate term. But the politics of that New England state also hold some interest in this debate in a largely unrelated way – the similarity between the ongoing quandary faced by advocates of expanded government services there and the dilemma that the current national health bills have posed for supporters of health insurance reform.

The “Massachusetts problem” stems from the fact that it is not only one of just seven states in the nation with a “flat” income tax but it also has a constitutional prohibition against establishing a graduated income tax – i.e., the kind we’re all familiar with on the federal level, with rates that climb in higher income brackets – and numerous efforts to amend the state constitution have failed. The flat income tax, combined with the state’s sales tax, has the effect of making the state’s overall tax structure regressive, which seriously hinders any attempted redirection of resources within the state. You may be able to steer services and goods to the poor, but the money to do so will come from the middle rungs on the economic ladder and not the top. The Massachusetts dilemma, then, has generally boiled down to this: Do you ignore real needs or do you address them in a manner likely to eventually lead to a “middle class” taxpayer revolt such as the state’s 1980 “Proposition 2 ½” property tax limitation or California’s more famous Proposition 13.

The national health care debate has faced no similar constitutional barriers, but the political barriers have proven every bit as formidable. The President and congressional leaders could have put forth a bill offering a more serious solution to the problem – whether single payer, another type of universal nonprofit health insurance, a government-run health care system, or something else entirely – but they chose not to. The $20 million in campaign contributions the health care industry gave Barack Obama (nearly three times the amount given John McCain) may not have in themselves bought a non-health insurance industry-threatening proposal, but it was probably at least a good predictor of the type of bill we would ultimately see.

So far as the debate within the left goes, both sides might do well to simply concede the other’s central point: It is both true that the bills that came out of Congress would expand health insurance coverage significantly, although not universally, and that they would not fundamentally alter the expensive and wasteful private for-profit health insurance industry that lies at the root of the problem – except to further entrench it by mandating the purchase of its services.

If we’re willing to grant the significance of both the bills’ strengths and their weaknesses, we might find ourselves then able to sympathize with the votes of both of the individuals who are arguably the most left-wing members of each congressional branch, even though they voted the opposite way: Senator Bernie Sanders was a “Yes” when one more “No” would have brought the Senate discussion to a halt, while Representative Dennis Kucinich voted “No” when there were a few House votes to spare and he could thereby highlight the vast gulf between the bill as it was and what it ought to be.

Just a couple of weeks ago, concern about the potential downside of passing the Senate or House bill as currently written might have been dismissed as academic, but it can’t be now – or at least it shouldn’t be. And for the fact that we now know that, we are indebted to MoveOn.org and Democracy for America for having the foresight and wherewithal to secure the services of the Research 2000 polling company to ask a few questions of the Massachusetts electorate. What they found was so at odds with the general “anti-big government” or “anti-insider” interpretations that dominate the mainstream media as to demand the closest attention from anyone with a serious interest in finding a real solution to America’s health care problems.

The poll’s target group was people who had voted for Barack Obama for President but did not vote for Martha Coakley, the Democrats’ Senate nominee; and further divided into those who had actually voted for Scott Brown, the Republican winner, and those who stayed home. When asked if they favored or opposed “the health care reform proposal recently passed by the U.S. Senate,” not terribly surprisingly, both groups opposed it – the Brown voters by a 48–32% margin and the non-voters by a 43-34%. And here’s where things veered from the accepted norms of political discourse: when those opposed were asked if they thought the Senate bill “goes too far or doesn’t go far enough,” the 2008 Obama voters who’d taken a pass on the Massachusetts election said it didn’t go not far enough, by 53-8% margin. And so did those who voted for Obama in 2008 and Brown in 2010 – by a 36-23% margin!

And just so there wouldn’t be any misunderstanding as to what going “far enough” might mean, the pollsters also posed the question “Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?” Both groups said yes – the Obama voters who stayed at home by a 86-7% margin and those who came out and voted for Brown by 82-14%.

Probably we shouldn’t entirely blame the mainstream pundits for the difficulty of incorporating the results of this poll into the national analysis. The fact is that the poll’s results are counterintuitive – people just don’t expect voters who felt the Senate health care bill did not go far enough to vote for a Republican. Counterintuitive, but true, however. Undoubtedly, some will simply reject the messenger like one woman who described her response to reading the MoveOn data thusly: “All I could do is roll my eyes. This is the second time I’ve been ready to unenroll.”

Others may find fault with the electorate itself, like one who thought, “I guess people do not measure the consequences of their vote.” But voters must deal with the choices they are presented as best they see fit (or stay at home) and the choices they have are not always logical. After all, there was no candidate on the Massachusetts ballot advocating going further than the Senate bill, now was there? It’s not just the voters who need to deal with the consequences of their actions – so do the members of Congress who gave us the bills currently at hand.

On January 1 of this year, a Rasmussen Reports poll found voters nationwide opposing the Congressional plans by a 58-39% margin. The poll also found a majority opposed to a single-payer health care system by a 52-34% margin. In other words, the spread against the Congressional plan – 19 points – was greater than the 18 point spread against a single payer plan, even though single payer has never had the benefit of so much as a single Congressional hearing or vote! Although it was dismissed as a non-starter from the outset, at this juncture it’s hard to see how the White House and Congressional leadership would have done worse if they’d had the political will to stand up to the insurance industry with a plan of which the President once said, “The truth is that unless you have a what’s called a single-payer system in which everybody is automatically covered, then you’re probably not going to reach every single individual.”

Opponents would have derided it as “big government,” to be sure, but it would have had the substantial asset of offering an actual solution to a major problem. Instead, the Democratic leadership chose to offer another type of “big government” solution, one that would involve ever more complex regulation of potential insurance company abuses, along with subsidies to allow lower income individuals to pay the bloated premiums those companies demand. And that’s big government that we can’t all believe in. As they’ve long known in Massachusetts, there’s consequences to these things.

Full disclosure: Tom Gallagher, Demockracy senior writer and columnist, served six years in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

GOP Demands to see Nobel Committee’s Birth Certificate

When the news broke earlier that sitting American (or is it Kenyan or Indonesian?) President Barack Obama was bequeathed with the Nobel Peace Prize, I naturally assumed that the Rush Limbaugh’s head would explode and the Republican Party would be stuck with a gargantuan body instead of a party head. Moreover, I instinctively knew that the blogosphere would be buzzing with more Republican and Conservative invective than Democrat or Liberal encomium.

Am I really that prescient or do Republicans really hate Barack Obama that much that many would put breathing oxygen in abeyance in order to vituperatively criticize President Obama?

“This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama,” said conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Rush continued: “And with this ‘award’ the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not (sic) take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States…. They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too.”

Oh Rush, did you run out of Oxycontin refills again? While we rational Americans have grown accustomed to the bile invective spewed daily from Mr. Limbaugh more effortlessly than potato chip crumbs, some Republicans decided that Rush Limbaugh is just too understanding and flirted with invective of their own.

Eric Erickson of the ever-so enlightening Red State.com had these encouraging words to say:

I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota.

Knee-jerk vitriol and racist commentary notwithstanding, the award is baffling some on the left as well.

Michael Moore, for example, offered his congratulations but boldly declared action as well.

Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize–Now earn it! Freedom can not be delivered from the front seat of someone else’s Humvee. You have to end our involvement in Afghanistan now. If you don’t, you’ll have no choice but to return the prize to Oslo.

Indeed, Obama may have made such lofty pronouncements such as closing Guantanamo, bringing the troops home from Iraq, wanting a nuclear weapon-free world, admitting to the Iranians that we overthrew their democratically-elected president in 1953, etc. But he has yet to follow through any of his pronouncements with concrete action and, worse yet, is risking escalating a lost cause in Afghanistan by extending our outstretched and vitiated troops in a purposeless battle.

Don’t believe me, just click here to read about the growing numbers of troops suffering from PTSD.

I realize that President Obama is looking to make up for the fact that Afghanistan and the “just war” was abandoned by the ruthless Bush Administration to pursue a petty vendetta in Iraq and make billions of dollars in no-bid contracts for their cronies. However, 6 years have passed since troops were shifted away from the Afghanistan conflict, and the situation has grown increasingly dire for our supposed mission. After all, the primary objective for going into Afghanistan was to kill and capture Osama bin Laden and his key associates, disrupt the vast Afghan terror network, and prevent Afghanistan from becoming another hotbed for terrorism.

Has blowback and the situation in Iraq taught us anything? The U.S. is  not in Afghanistan to police a nation beset by tribalism and internal conflicts. We cannot naively expect to train a miserably incompetent army at the aegis of a corrupt government,  an army that may ultimately joins the Taliban anyway.

Barack Obama winning the Noble peace prize–something that not even he expected–is certainly momentous and naturally is being lauded by the sane world. But it is imperative that we do not allow ourselves to get stuck in the warm and fuzzy clouds of this achievement as many did immediately following the election of Barack Obama. Intelligent critics must ensure that President Obama does in fact earn this prestigious prize.

Copernicus and the Search for God

I started my search with hope, but in the end there was nothing, but that’s OK. My search spanned many years, many books, and many miles traveled. It is a journey made in some way by all of humankind, an effort to correlate religious belief within the parameters of authenticated history and science. While I was never a regular Church goer, after a brush with cancer, I decided to explore the options.

Just as man has developed over the centuries, so have religions evolved and developed to mirror man’s progress. In the very beginnings were the worship of the sun, natural phenomena, and the spirits of the animals. With the establishment of city states, so came the idea of King/Gods to give strength and courage to their soldiers in battle, by convincing them that the sacrifice, even of their lives, would be rewarded by their God/Kings. [This theory is explained by Jared Diamond in his best seller Guns, Germs and Steel.] The Gods were depicted as enhanced versions of themselves, living in improved versions of our cities, suspended above us in the sky.

From those early beginnings, education, philosophy, and the sciences emerged. With more knowledge of the known world, the old City Gods seemed primitive, and all encompassing religions with one God became the norm. The first of these monotheist religions that grew around the Indus valley in India was Hinduism. The beginnings of Hinduism in India occurred around 2,000 B.C.E. Much of its beliefs were imported with the Dravidians, who entered India from the North already with many of the basic beliefs of what was to become Hinduism. It retained the old Gods at a base level, but assumed the belief that at a higher level, God was one, but man was too lowly to comprehend the higher complexities. Buddhism, which in many ways is more of a philosophy, was then born with the Buddha in 563 B.C.E . Many devout Hindus claim to this day that Buddhism is really just an offshoot of Hinduism.

The area where all our western monotheisms or one-God beliefs started was the Middle East. There Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all arose with very similar and overlapping histories. Jerusalem is of course central to all of those faiths. It is intriguing that some of the main beliefs of our Abrahamic faiths are taken directly from the pre-Abrahamic Gods.

Validation of the Faith

For as far back as faith has been around, humankind has attempted to validate that faith through the scientific philosophical approach. [Here I am indebted to Karen Armstrong for her amazing book, A History of God.] Thousands have sought over the ages to prove the existence of God. Indeed, probably all of us have at some point. The Greeks were probably the earliest recognizable true philosophers. They rejected mythological answers to solve the basics questions of heaven and earth. Probably the most intense and prolonged questioning occurred in Iberia during the 700 years it was under Arab rule, while Europe was still deeply mired in the Medieval mud. It was there that the sharpest religious minds from Judaism and Islam cooperated closely to try to reach a proof, any proof. From all of this evolved the most elaborate theories, doctrines, and suppositions, all as improvable as the original question. The mystic approach, where students look deeply within their own being, has proven more successful to its adherents. Christian Mystics, Muslim Sufis, and Hindu Sadhus have all turned their focus inward through a variety of modes of contemplation. Sufis whirl in concentric circles; Sadhus contemplate, often in poses for hours or days on end in positions that would be extremely uncomfortable for most of us for even a few seconds. Some Monks go without speaking for years on end in an attempt to hear the small inner voice. Even hippies have tried this approach, perhaps the easy way with Mescaline, LSD, Magic Mushrooms, and other mediums. Unfortunately, these approaches probably reveal more about the complexity of the human neurology than the nature of God.

Religious opinions change almost on a daily basis in an attempt to remain pertinent to societies own changes. For right or wrong, it has been essential to keeping stability in many societies by helping keep a promise of a better life after death for those who live indigent livelihoods and as a mechanism for keeping a people united under a common tribal identity against a common enemy with supposed lesser beliefs.

Should Have Religion Died in 1543?

In 1543 Copernicus’s seminal work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), posited that the heavens did not revolve around the earth, but the other way around. Arab and Indian scholars had of course knew that for centuries, but this was the first time it was proven to the Christian world. Before this, everything was about us and our planet. Our earth was the center of the universe, all things revolved around us, and, of course, our God overlooked us, judged us, rewarded us, and helped us out in times of trouble. After 1543 we were an immeasurably tiny part of billions of galaxies that extend outward for millions of light years.

The End of My Journey

So is this the end of this journey that I strangely found very satisfying?  The question then is what drives us to religion, and how it is sometimes used to manipulate us. It is a truism that all of us, from the age where we first have a brush with death, be it the death of a relative, friend, or pet, feel the need for a power that makes it alright. The need for religion makes talented salesmen of religion rich, powerful, and influential in every society around the globe. In areas where religion is strongest, it is essential that our leaders adhere to the true faith. Barack Obama would have stood no chance of election if he had declared himself agnostic, yet reading his autobiographical book Dreams From My Father suggests that he valued the works of the church in their help to the poor in Chicago and the dedication of some of the ministers. However, nowhere is there any statement of his own faith. Although I have no doubt that is he a Christian, the fact that he doesn’t seem to wear it on his sleeve, but rather seems to live it through shared values is probably one of his greatest strengths.

Once we accept that belief can transcend evidence, we are programmed to accept without question what those good Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu leaders tell us. That is why religion has caused so many conflicts over the ages. Today, of course, medieval tortures have been reinvented to use on those lured into battle by their own deluded religious teachers and leaders.

Religion in one form or another has been with us from the beginning of time and will probably be with us until the end. Einstein himself believed in no formal religion, but thought that their must be some master equation which could be used to harmonize all things. It was this equation which he saw as God’s design. He did not believe that humankind played any role, above being a tiny part in “the equation.” Alas Quantum mechanics, whose theories Einstein opposed vehemently throughout the latter part of his life, with its basis being a lack of any order, has moved physics further from any such unifying equation.

The final question then must be: Has mankind benefited from religion, or has all of it been a chain around our necks. Clearly, as mentioned before, it has been a necessity for stability in many societies. Without this stability, the conditions for economic growth and progress may not have been sufficient. Also, it has been a solace to many in times of great stress or sorrow. It has helped countless people through times of intolerable hardship, famine, plague, and wars. Religion left alone and not seized upon by power hungry individuals, states, or countries, can and has been a power for good. I look on the Dalai Llama, Mahatma Gandhi, and the Aga Khan as shining lights in that respect.

Unfortunately, where religions have evolved into powerful advocacy groups on their own behalf, with their leaders’ power-hungry egos inflated by their own sense of gravitas, they inevitably do more to divide and deride than to resolve, pacify, and heal. Religion will continue to hold sway for many more millennia, so it essential for us to understand in an historical rational way the damage that can be caused by the lack of separation between state and religion. In the end, that was the main lesson of my personal journey.

You Can Indefinitely Detain Some of the People Some of the Time

One of the larger problems in my life is that, whenever I want to write about a civil liberties issue, Glenn Greenwald has already beaten me to it. And written it better than I could have. Greenwald is a former civil liberties attorney and number one defender of The Constitution. He is not a Democratic apologist. He heavily criticized President Bush. And he is now heavily criticizing President Obama. In Greenwald’s opinion, suggesting that enforcing our laws is “radical” or “extreme” or “left-wing” is disgusting. When did enforcing the law become a partisan issue? He also writes about the media and how he believes that the media are beholden to the political class in a horrible, symbiotic relationship that ensures that the Fourth Estate will never actually hold our leaders accountable for anything.

And I agree with him on all of it. Absolutely all of it. Darn him! Darn him to heck!

For example, Glenn and I were furious this last week when Sen. Harry Reid kept using a verb that could just as easily have been crafted by Karl Rove. The verb was “release,” as in, “Terrorists from Guantanamo Bay will be released into the U.S.” Many pundits, and even Obama himself, used the verb “release” to describe what the government will do to detainees in Guantanamo Bay now that the administration has re-iterated its desire to close the prison there. “Release” evokes images of terrorists approaching the shore on boats and then merrily skipping off, free of shackles and permitted to wander throughout the country, blowing up whatever they please.

Let it be known: terrorists will not be released into anything. They will be shackled, they will be monitored, they will be in our custody and under guard as they are transported from Cuba to the mainland. And once on the mainland, they will continue to be monitored and under guard as they are moved to whatever prison they will occupy next. Those who believe that terrorists will be “released” in the United States are either negligently ignorant, willfully stupid, or maliciously misrepresentative. One guess as to which one describes Harry Reid.

Prior to September 11, 2001, we believed in something called “due process.” It’s a Fifth Amendment guarantee:

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. [Emphasis mine.]

The Supreme Court has ruled before that, since the Constitution uses the word “person” and not “citizen”; and since it would have been very easy to use the word citizen, but person was used instead; and since the author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, was a lawyer by trade and a very smart man and probably not prone to misusing words; that it therefore follows that the Bill of Rights was intended to apply not only to U.S. citizens, but anyone in the United States. This is affirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits a state to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Again, note the use of the word person where citizen could have been used, but wasn’t.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by a group of terrorists led by Omar Abdel-Rahman, better known as The Blind Sheik. The bomb damaged a parking garage and did kill some people, but it didn’t come close to bringing the building down. Abdel-Rahman and three other accomplices were indicted by civilian prosecutors, accused of breaking publicly-accessible laws, tried in open court inside the United States, under the guidelines of the Constitution and the rules of U.S. civil procedure, and sentenced to U.S. civilian prisons. After 1993, the nation was not less safe because Abdel-Rahman and his accomplices were being imprisoned inside the United States. Abdel-Rahman is housed at the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

In 1995, Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice Terry Nichols parked a rental truck containing a homemade fertilizer bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The bomb exploded, killing 168 people, injuring 800 others, and destroying the building. Nichols and McVeigh were indicted, again by civilian prosecutors, accused of breaking publicly-accessible (that is, not secret) laws, tried in open court, and sentenced to U.S. civilian prisons. McVeigh was given the death penalty. The nation is not less safe because Terry Nichols is housed inside the United States.

I think you get the point. Eric Rudolph, the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bomber; Wadih el-Hage, accused of involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings; Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber; Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber”; Jose Padilla, the “dirty bomber.” All of these people are being held inside the United States right now, and no one — no one! — is arguing that the United States is less safe because of it. To suggest that allowing Dangerous Criminals inside our borders is silly; there are already more dangerous criminals here!

It’s also worth noting that, with the exception of Reid and Padilla, all of the above criminals were convicted using the 200-year-old, civilian due process proscribed by the Constitution. Reid and Padilla were held incommunicado in U.S. navy brigs. The government eventually dropped its terrorism charge against Padilla, who was alleged to be making a “dirty bomb” (a traditional bomb filled with radioactive material; it would not cause a nuclear explosion, but it would spread radiation). Since the government didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute the terrorism charge, the charge was dropped. Padilla, nevertheless, was sentenced because even though terrorism is a crime, all the things that terrorists do are already illegal, anyway! Blowing up a building is no more illegal because it was done with a political agenda in mind.

The assertion that Terrorists need to be tried in a special, extra-Constitutional way, held without charge, subjected to torture, and perhaps never afforded a trial is ludicrous. In the paragraphs above, we have ample evidence proving that trying terrorists in civilian courts, using civilian rules, does work. The United States is not less safe. And furthermore, housing convicted terrorists in civilian prisons does work. And furthermore, charging them and trying them does work. For people like Vice President Cheney to suggest that using due process makes us less safe just goes to show us how out of his mind the man is. He would probably be happier living in Iran, where the executive has unlimited power to imprison people for made-up reasons, or no reason at all. Here in the United States, we do not convict people merely on the confidential say-so of the executive branch; that’s the way dictatorships (you know, those countries that we purport to be fighting against — unless your name is “Saudi Arabia”) behave. Here in the United States, it is up to the executive to prove that the accused is guilty. Guilt is never assumed — unless, apparently, you committed a terrorism-related crime after September 11, 2001. Or you were linked to terrorism, no matter how specious the link or how questionable the evidence. Or you associated with terrorists, even if you didn’t know they were terrorists. Or you were planning on committing a terrorism-related crime, even if “terror” wasn’t your goal. Or, as Obama articulated yesterday, the government is afraid you might commit terrorist crimes in the future. Yes, the possibility of future law-breaking is now grounds not only for detaining someone, but for never giving them a trial or even a preliminary hearing to prove that they did what they were accused of doing. As long as the government says “Terrorist,” an individual’s guilt is implicit and that person will never, ever be released. (More likely, as Greenwald observed, you will be imprisoned indefinitely if the government can’t guarantee that it will win a trial. Do show trials sound like the hallmark of a vibrant democracy or a repressive despotism?)

Obama’s plan is definitely a step in the right direction, but it’s not nearly enough. In order to restore the rule of law to this out-of-control country, he must admit that there is no situation in which a person should be held indefinitely; habeas corpus is a right guaranteed to anyone in U.S. custody, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed as much. Obama apologists have used exactly the same rhetoric President Bush used to support Obama’s case; namely, “we are at war.” And these prisoners are prisoners of war; therefore, they do not have the right to contest their detention, and they may be detained until the end of the conflict. Seeing as how we’re waging a war on an abstract idea, it’s hard to see exactly when (or if) this war will be over.

Are we now in the business of imprisoning people indefinitely? What does that say about us as a nation? What will historians say fifty years from now? Today, we regard the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II as deplorable and appalling, but at the time, it made sense to our political leaders. We have the ability to stop lawlessness right now instead of musing, decades later, about the mistakes we made, and saying, “We’re so sorry. We’ll do better next time.” Unfortunately, every time “next time” comes up, we fail again (we began failing as early as the John Adams administration, with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts). Obama offers the promise of actually living up to our ideals as a country. Rather than fumble to attempt to explain and excuse his actions, we must ask, “Is what he is doing right? Is it legal?” And, as Glenn Greenwald wonders, “What would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people indefinitely and with no charges?”

Please do read Glenn’s article. It is a thorough, lucid, and amazing analysis of Obama’s position on these detainees, with some very tough questions and conclusions that must necessarily follow from that position. I do not believe they are questions that Obama and his supporters want to ask, because they lead to the very same places formerly occupied by previous administrations. At the end of the day, Obama & Co. are saying, “Yes, it is okay to detain some people indefinitely, without the government ever having to prove that they committed a crime.” Not only is that assertion illegal, it’s un-American, and if we continue down that road, it makes this country not only less safe, but less worth defending.

Constitution 7, Limitless Executive Power 0

Every time — every single time — that President Bush asserted some unlimited executive power in the name of “national security” or “terrorism,” a federal court has shot him down. Let’s take a walk down memory lane.

2004 marked the first big loss for the Bush administration in the judiciary branch. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was the first major challenge to President Bush’s self-asserted national security powers. In that case, the Bush administration asserted that Hamdi, an alleged terrorist captured in Afghanistan, had no right to contest his detention. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and said that Hamdi, an “enemy combatant,” did have the right to contest his detention before a neutral decisionmaker. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay did have the right to habeas petitions, and the Military Commissions Act’s hearings were unconstitutional. In Rasul v. Bush (2004), the Court struck down legislation that ostensibly prevented the federal courts from ruling on whether or not Guantanamo detainees were wrongfully imprisoned. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor,of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ruled in 2006 that the Bush administration could not use the state secrets privilege to dismiss evidence in a case involving warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of U.S. citizens. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that Congress did not intend to use the Detainee Treatment Act to strip the Supreme Court of its authority to hear pending habeas petitions from prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Also in 2006, Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, refused to dismiss a civil suit against AT&T for warrantless wiretapping. The Bush administration had again asserted the state secrets privilege.

And now we come back to present day. President Obama’s Justice Department has, much to my chagrin, continued — and in some cases, exceeded — the use of the state secrets privilege. It even wanted to have an entire case dismissed on the grounds that the evidence to be used was classified under the state secrets privilege. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals down on Hyde Street in San Francisco — right across the street from the public library — ruled today that Obama could not have the case dismissed due to “state secrets.”

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing the unanimous opinion of the three-judge panel, didn’t buy the Justice Department’s argument that “the very subject matter” of the case was so confidential, and could be so potentially damaging to national security, that it couldn’t even be discussed in court. The “subject matter” was Jeppesen Dataplan’s involvement in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody to CIA “black sites” around the world, where they would be presumably tortured. (Jeppesen Dataplan is an oddly-named subsidiary of Boeing, whose airplanes were used to transport suspects to other countries for torture.)

The Ninth Circuit was quite strong in its affirmation that the Obama administration was making things up (the judges rejected the “very subject matter” argument because “it is unsupported in the case law”; i.e., Justice Department lawyers made it up). It was also strong in its affirmation of the separation of powers principle. The job of the courts is to interpret the law. The job of the executive is to enforce the law. For Obama to assert that there exists a scenario in which the court cannot be allowed to interpret the law is a gross overreach of presidential power that violates the separation of powers principle.

Oh, and they took time out of their busy schedule to say that “arbitrary imprisonment and torture under any circumstance is a ‘gross and notorious … act of despotism.’” (Bonus points: that was part of Justice Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).

What’s interesting about Obama’s argument here is that he wants to use the state secrets doctrine to prevent even the confirmation or denial of the fact that people were extraordinarily rendered. We’re not even talking secret evidence here; Obama says that it is detrimental to national security to say merely that something happened or not. Judge Hawkins will have none of this: “The state secrets privilege has never applied to prevent parties from litigating the truth or falsity of allegations, or facts, or information simply because the government regards the truth or falsity of the allegations to be secret,” he writes. Sure, the state secrets privilege can be used to suppress evidence, but not to suppress the fact that something happened. To go into the nitty-gritty of how extraordinary rendition works (which would be evidence) might be damaging to national security, but merely stating that it happens is not damaging to national security. (What it is damaging to is the country’s public image, and it opens up the government to litigation. Let’s be clear, here: this has nothing to do with actual national security and everything to do with damage control, something the Ninth Circuit hints at in the opinion.)

Finally, the Ninth Circuit addresses the fine distinction between “classified” and “secret.” Classified information is ipso facto subject to a whole host of laws, many of which give the executive branch the authority to decide what to classify and declassify. The distinction becomes important to this case because the government argues that courts should defer to the executive, per the Freedom of Information Act, regarding what should or should not be “secret,” since all secret things are also necessarily classified. The government cannot seriously argue, says the court, that information that has been made public (as this was; The New York Times reported years ago on the existence of this rendition program) is still “secret,” and by way of “secret,” therefore “confidential.” It does not follow that, because the executive says something is confidential, the courts must necessarily accede and declare that confidential thing to be secret within the scope of a judicial proceeding.

The court emphasized that its ruling was limited only to the issue of whether or not the state secrets privilege could be used to dismiss the case wholesale. The case will be remanded back to the district court from whence it came, with the understanding that Obama may use the state secrets privilege to have certain evidence excluded, but he may not have the whole case dismissed. Even then, it will be up to the court to decide whether to actually exclude the evidence or not.

Given that seven cases over five years have all declared absolute executive power to be unconstitutional, you’d think that the executive branch would take the hint. And I’m especially disappointed by Obama, who wrote in a January memorandum to all executive agencies:

The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve.

Are they just empty words? We’ll see.

If Republicans Won’t Play Along on Health Care, Who Cares?

The Republicans bluffed and lost in February when they complained that the stimulus bill wasn’t “bi-partisan” enough. Okay, so House and Senate Democrats acquiesced to some of their demands, including tax cuts for businesses and removing provisions for “family planning” (the euphemism that refers to things like abortion and contraception). The Republicans responded to these concessions by voting against the bill.

Not a single House or Senate Republican voted in favor of the stimulus bill. They apparently believed that this would demonstrate to the American people their opposition to wasteful spending and fiscal irresponsibility. Trouble is, the American people didn’t much care what the Republicans thought; they’re in the midst of a financial crisis, where hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost each month. Hell, yes, they want a stimulus!

Republicans were using a two-pronged approach to sway the public: (1) tax cuts are superior to government spending when it comes to stimulating the economy; and (2) the government is spending way too much. I won’t go into the merits of the arguments here, but suffice it to say that those were the counter-arguments to the Democratic spending bill (yes, “stimulus” = “spending.” Recall President Obama’s statement: “What do you think a stimulus bill is?”).

The public doesn’t much care for tax cuts when those tax cuts would benefit only the top earners in the country. Now, what does look like a good idea is investment in public works projects that have been long-neglected by Reaganites who believe that the government shouldn’t spend any money on anything that isn’t national defense.

Those four paragraphs were a flashback.

Interior — White House, Present Day.

President Obama is meeting with GOP leaders, reminding them that when they clamored for “bi-partisanship,” they abandoned it just as much as they accused Democrats of abandoning it. Between 2003 and 2009, Republicans were used to getting their way every time. Sure, Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007, but for some reason, Democrats spent those two years perfecting the fine arts of cowering and acquiescing. Whenever Republicans talked about “bi-partisanship,” they meant, “Give us everything we want or we’ll call you names. We’ll say you’re soft on terrorism. We’ll say you’re engaging in pork-barrel spending. And if that doesn’t work, then we’ll call you socialists and say that you hate America and want the terrorists to win. So you’d better give us all the things we demand, and if you ever try to put your own agenda forward, we’ll slap you down so hard you’d think Mike Tyson had taken Trent Lott’s seat.”

Well, the tables have certainly turned. And I’m pleased that Obama is prepared to shut Republicans out if they refuse to play ball. Hypocrisy? Not at all. I believe in universal health care. I think it’s absolutely necessary and I think it’s nothing but good. If Democrats are willing to embrace it and make it law, then I support them. When Republicans tried to stop SCHIP, I disagreed with them. It’s a matter of not only agreement and disagreement, but also of what’s good for this country. Quite honestly, the Republicans are not interested in governance. They’re interested in stalling until 2010. They want the wheels of government to grind to a halt so that they can then go back to their constituents in November, 2010 and say, “Look at what the Democrats have done for you! Nothing, that’s what! Aren’t you sorry that you voted them into office?”

And therein lies the fundamental difference: Democrats, including President Obama, are interested in doing something constructive. I will frequently disagree with the methods they use, but I largely agree with their philosophy that the government is going to need to spend money to improve the country. I agree that the wealthy should pay for the impoverished. And I agree that health care should be our right not only as citizens, but as human beings. I think the Democrats’ approach is superior to the Republicans’ approach, and that is why I believe that if Republicans are unwilling to reach an actual compromise with the Democrats, then they should be left behind. It is not the Democrats who should have to bend to appease the Republicans; the Democrats won, their ideas are better, and if the Republicans don’t want to go along with them, then it’s their own funeral. Congress doesn’t even need the Republicans.

I’m not the only one who believes this. The American people would rather the Democrats get on with their agenda instead of watering it down to please Republicans whose sanction they don’t need and whose contempt they will get in return for their efforts. In the New York Times/CBS poll referenced above, 56% of those surveyed said that they thought Democrats should stick to their policies, but 79% thought that it was Republicans who should be bi-partisan. That says a lot: not only do Americans want Democrats to do whatever it is Democrats want to do, but they simultaneously think that Republicans should do whatever it is the Democrats want to do.

Health care reform is way too important for Democrats to be chicken about. The last significant health care reform we had in this country was the prescription drug bill from 2005, which funneled a lot of money directly from the government into the hands of prescription drug companies. Sure, the bill could have included a provision for the government to use its significant bargaining power to get better deals on drugs — but then, that would hurt the drug companies’ revenue, wouldn’t it? At approximately the same time, Congress passed a bankruptcy bill that offered terrific terms for banks, credit card companies, and the very wealthy, but left middle- and low-income people in the dark.

The relationship between bankruptcy and health care is quite close; President Bush declared, in 2005, that we needed the bankruptcy bill so as to stop people from gaming the system and trying to get the rest of us to pay off their debts. To listen to him, you’d think Americans were going bankrupt after buying too many Faberge eggs. At the time he said that, though, fully half of bankruptcies in American were being caused not by frivolous over-spending, but by health-care spending. People were — and still are! — spending themselves into tremendous debt in order to stay healthy and alive. And since our health care system discourages regular check-ups, people are guaranteed to see a doctor only when the condition is serious, which means that it will cost more money to fix than it would have if a doctor had caught the condition earlier, during a regular check-up.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Republicans see health care as a political issue instead of a humanitarian one. In 1993, Bill Kristol wrote that Republicans couldn’t afford to let the Clinton health care plan survive; if it did, then the Republicans would be finished. Let me re-iterate that: to Bill Kristol, it was more important that heath care get defeated so the Democrats wouldn’t win re-election in 1994 than it was for people to have universal access to health care.

That’s what we’re up against. And that’s why I support the Democrats. And if Republicans don’t want to join, who cares? Let them explain to their constituents in 2010 about how they didn’t want those same constituents to have universal health care, all so that the free market could survive.

I’ve Seen This Movie Before

I had the most amazing dream last night. Thankfully, Jimmy Kimmel in a diaper wasn’t in this one. Instead, I saw Barack Obama giving a speech about government openness and accountability. He talked about the closure of the U.S. terrorist prison in Guantanamo Bay; he talked about ending extraordinary rendition of U.S. terrorism suspects to other countries where they would be tortured; he talked about ending the use of extra-legal means to spy on Americans under color of law, and he talked about an absolute ban on the use of torture.

Recent events have confirmed that this is only a dream. The candidate of alleged change has instead agreed with George W. Bush on almost every torture and secrecy issue. He ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay. But, in a brilliant feat of misdirection, none of us ever saw that his Justice Department was working tirelessly to ensure that the same civil liberties that were held to apply to Guantanamo detainees would never apply to detainees held at, for example, Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

A Lawless Prison By Any Other Name

Sure, Boumediene v. Bush clearly established that, at a minimum, prisoners in the United States’ Guantanamo Bay facility are entitled to habeas corpus, the 793-year-old doctrine that if a person is to be held in jail, he must be charged with a crime. The Bush administration thought that it had sent 600-some detainees of the War on Terr’ into a “legal black hole” (the Justice Department’s words) where US law did not apply, and therefore, people could be kept there indefinitely without being charged with a crime, without the right to challenge their detention, and without the government having to prove that they were terrorists.

Then the Bush administration relented, wrote the Military Commissions Act, and decided that was good enough. The Act explicitly stripped detainees of their habeas rights and said that the government would create military commissions to evaluate whether or not each detainee should continue to be held. The Supreme Court didn’t like that, either, saying that the MCA process was fundamentally flawed, and furthermore, it was not within Congress’ power to take habeas rights away from anyone.

As soon as he came into office, Obama put a halt to the Military Commissions Act tribunals, recognizing that they were fundamentally flawed. He also said he would close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. While those are both laudable, his next action is, once again, right out of How to Suspend the Constitution Without Really Trying, David Addington’s best-selling Richard P. Cheney thriller. Detainees of the War on Terr’ would instead be moved to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The argument is that, since Afghanistan is still an active war zone, it would be ludicrous to give prisoners there any habeas rights, since they would be prisoners of war. Then again, that was the rationale used to scoop up hundreds of people on the “battlefield” in Afghanistan in 2001 and send them to Cuba.

Wiretapping? What Wiretapping?

A few weeks ago, the Obama Justice Department moved to dismiss a case in federal court involving illegal wiretapping. In spite of his January memoranda committing the Executive Branch to transparency and accountability, Obama’s reasoning vis-a-vis wiretapping remains unchanged from the Bush years; that is, opacity in the extreme, no accountability (i.e., you can knowingly and maliciously break the law, but you won’t be prosecuted for it), and a firm commitment to using the state secrets privilege to cover up illegal government activity.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration filed a petition to have the entire warrantless wiretapping case dismissed under a never-before-seen doctrine of “sovereign immunity” that comes from the USA PATRIOT Act. It’s not the sovereign immunity itself that is at issue (sovereign immunity is a very old legal doctrine which holds that the sovereign — in this case, the government — is immune from criminal prosecution in some instances). It’s that sovereign immunity has never before been used a a defense in these wiretapping cases. To the Obama administration’s credit, it has interpreted into being a sovereign immunity claim based on the fact that Congress had not explicitly waived sovereign immunity when it came to these cases. Therefore, argues the Justice Department, the courts must err on the side of the sovereign. This is, of course, in addition to the standard-issue “state secrets” defense, which consists of, “In order for you to have a case, you need to prove you’ve been harmed. In order for you to prove you’ve been harmed, you need access to classified information. Because giving you that information would compromise national security, we’re not going to give it to you. Since you don’t have that evidence to prove your case, you have no case. So let’s dismiss the case.”

Let’s Talk Torture

Yesterday, after years of legal battles led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Obama administration released four memoranda from the Bush years in which the Office of Legal Counsel — the legal-advice arm of the White House — declared that, yes, “enhanced interrogation techniques” like water-boarding were perfectly legal. In making these documents public, however, Obama added the caveat that CIA employees who engaged in these techniques, which are correctly and properly called torture, will not be prosecuted.

I am of two minds on this particular issue. On the one hand, we have the Nuremberg Defense, used by various strata of Nazi soldiers in the post-World War II Nuremberg trials. The defense amounted to, “I was just following orders,” the implication being that very low-level soldiers who did the actual dirty work of killing 6 million Jews (and millions of others of various non-Nazi-approved races, nationalities, ethnicities, and sexual orientations) were faced with the choice of either doing what they were told, despite their orders being obviously morally and legally wrong, or standing up to their superiors and facing court marshall or death themselves. The outcome of the trials was Nuremberg Principle IV, which states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” This principle was incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and now U.S. military personnel may refuse to follow an order that they believe violates the law, with the law including the U.S. Constitution and any treaties to which the U.S. may be a party (including the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly forbid the use of torture).

Then again, these CIA operatives were assured that what they were ordered to do was legal. They were assured by the president — who is their boss — that it was okay to do what they were doing. It’s not an issue of questionable legality; they were told — by lawyers, who are alleged to be experts in the field of law — that it was okay to water-board suspects, deprive them of sleep, and occasionally hit them. Must they then be faulted for their lack of follow-up? Are they expected to then second-guess White House lawyers? The issue is murky. Definitely the people at the top who were responsible for crafting these policies — Bush himself, Vice President Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, and Alberto Gonzales — must be prosecuted. But what about the people in the field? As Glenn Greenwald observes, the law compels the Justice Department to prosecute everyone who took part in torture. There was a moral choice: CIA operatives could have made the choice not to engage in torture. And if it risked their careers, so be it. They were not themselves ever threatened with death or torture; the loss of one’s job is not morally equivalent to torturing another human being.

It’s certainly true that President Obama has done a number of laudable things in his four months in office. But he can still do better, and all of us need to push him away from the trope of “centrism” (which, in U.S. political discourse in 2009, means “being conservative”). And if he does have a legitimate national security concern, he should let us know. He doesn’t have to go into the gory details, but it would be nice to know why he’s suddenly changed his mind. After eight years of “Trust me, I know what I’m doing,” I voted for a government that doesn’t demand faith from its people.

Starry, Starry Plight: Obama and the Space Program

Space enthusiasts are watching and listening carefully to find out how President Barack Obama will support NASA during his administration. Earlier this year he gave the space agency a glowing endorsement:

When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of. We cannot cede our leadership in space. We need a real vision for space exploration. Let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy.

Before we dive into recent developments, a brief review of NASA under George W. Bush is in order. NASA achieved some laudable feats in the last eight years, notably:

• It greatly expanded the International Space Station (ISS) to add more solar panels, laboratories, and living space (with contributions from other nations, notably Russia and Canada).
• It successfully landed two Mars rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) that have been sending pictures back for 5 years, much longer than originally anticipated.
• It repaired and upgraded the Hubble Space Telescope, which has sent more than half a million images back to Earth.
• It developed the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will take astronauts to the Moon and Mars.
• It launched the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has produced sensational images of Mars.

In particular, the string of successful trips to Mars stands in stark contrast to previous missions. Historically most attempts to explore the Red Planet have failed, including one notorious disaster in 1999 caused by a mix-up of measurements made with the metric and English systems.

Yet since the achievements of the Apollo program that landed astronauts on the Moon, there hasn’t been a program that has evoked the same widespread level of interest here and abroad. Indeed in March President Obama made reference to this in an answer to a reporter’s question about the shuttle program

NASA has yielded — or the space shuttle program has yielded some extraordinary scientific discoveries. But I think it’s fair to say that there’s been a sense of drift to our space program over the last several years. We need to restore that sense of excitement and interest that existed around the space program. And shaping a mission for NASA that is appropriate for the 21st century is going to be one of the biggest tasks of my new NASA director.

Sadly as of this writing, The White House’s Technology Page does not include any mention of the space program. Obama has not yet appointed a new NASA administrator, though rumors have been circulating this year about the possible pick of astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson. Anyone who has seen Tyson on PBS’s NOVA scienceNOW cannot deny his charisma and enthusiasm for astronomy and space exploration. Tyson is currently the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York and is famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for advocating the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a “dwarf planet.”

Financial support for NASA remains strong despite the severe worldwide recession. The fiscal year 2010 budget of $18.7 billion is $2.4 billion above the 2008 amount. The first priority listed in their budget summary is climate change monitoring and research. President Obama has repeatedly mentioned addressing global warming as a top issue, as noted in my last article.

NASA scientist James Hansen continues to be a fierce advocate for action to combat global warming. In 2006 he complained that the Bush Administration was trying to silence his dire warnings for political reasons. In December 2008, James Hansen and his wife Anniek Hansen sent an open letter to then President-Elect Obama (and his wife Michelle Obama) urging him to phase out traditional polluting coal plants, support an aggressive carbon tax plan, and encourage R&D of modern nuclear power plants.

Many people are sad to see the end of the successful space shuttle program, currently scheduled for 2010. If and when the shuttle program is canceled, Florida residents may bear the brunt of the employment fallout with 8,000 or more jobs on the line. However a congressman and congresswoman from Florida have introduced legislation to keep the shuttle program alive a bit longer.

The new Orion spacecraft and companion Ares Launch Vehicles are presently in the testing phase. NASA expects to fly the first missions in 2014 or 2015, leaving us with at least a four-year gap in the government’s space transportation system. (Private companies will carry supplies to the ISS, and the Russian Soyuz will be used to rotate crews.)

The James Web Space Telescope (JWST), often described as the successor to Hubble, is currently in development and expected to be deployed in 2013. NASA intends to keep Hubble in operation until at least that time, to avoid any interruption in data collection. JWST is substantially larger than Hubble, though lower in mass. Hubble detects light in the optical and ultraviolet ranges, and can be repaired in space, while JWST will collect data only from infrared light. Nevertheless, JWST will allow scientists to peer substantially further back into the distant past, closer to the origin of the universe.

There have been reports that Obama might combine some space programs from NASA and the Pentagon. The Pentagon’s space budget is significantly higher than NASA’s total budget, and some observers wonder whether the space vehicle gap might be filled in by the military. The merger discussions have been fueled by the fear that China has strong military intentions for its own space program.

While the U.S. must be mindful of threats to our security from other nations, a strong militarization of NASA would be an unfortunate turn of events. NASA was founded during the Eisenhower Administration to conduct non-military space activities. Obviously there is already significant overlap in personnel, and technology flows in both directions. But it would be very sad if NASA becomes distracted or subverted by security issues.

Other controversies still brewing include:

• Arguments about whether robots or humans should be sent to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.
• Whether we should ever bother going back to the Moon.
• Calls for President Obama to fire NASA’s inspector general Robert Cobb — a recent New York Times editorial accused him of being unethical and ineffectual.
• How much we should cooperate with other nations’ space programs.
• An oldie but a goodie–whether NASA should even exist given all the problems we have to solve on Earth.

Despite the criticisms and controversies, the space program is a vital part of our national identity. It has inspired generations of students young and old, capturing their imagination like nothing else. The dream of human flight and exploration will not go away as long as birds take wing and stars and planets twinkle. NASA must survive and thrive during Obama’s time in office, so we may continue to watch over our pale blue dot from space and keep looking at the stars.

(Thanks to Michael Conway for suggesting the title of this article.)

A Free Choice? Making the Case for American Workers

Over the past week, there has been substantial media coverage of the public rancor over A.I.G. bonuses, the Obama administration’s ballooning deficit spending, and Timothy Geithner’s plan to buy up toxic debt. And while Washington’s economic policies certainly deserve to be on everyone’s minds, there is another issue that could affect millions of workers that is getting far less play in the news but definitely a lot of heated debate among union leaders, corporations, and Congress—“card-check” voting.

Its official name is the Employee Free Choice Act and it would amend the National Labor Act of 1935 to essentially make union organization much easier for workers. The legislation would allow workers to form a union if a majority signs pro-union cards and would forgo the current practice of secret ballot elections. Other provisions would impose binding arbitration when employers and unions fail to reach a contract after 120 days and would substantially increase fines on employers who jeopardize union activities.

Proponents of the plan are many Democrats and large unions (including AFL-CIO and SEIU) who say that the current restrictions for unions put their members’ rights at a disadvantage. Many advocates for the change in the law, such as the union coalition Change to Win, say that private voting encourages intimidation and coercion of companies’ employees who wish to unionize. The act would also encourage a speedier and more thorough process in contract disputes and would triple the damages imposed against companies who do not adhere to union standards.

There are many opponents of this measure—both corporate and political—who view this legislation as an ends-to-justify the means type of regulation. The Chamber of Commerce has been very outspoken in its disapproval of the Act and notes that it could disenfranchise both parties (employers and workers) in the long run.  Under the proposed new rules, union organizers would be under no obligation to notify their employers that they are going to launch a union drive.  In addition, the “card check” policy would abolish secret-ballot elections even if many workers wish to have them. Also, in the instance that the companies and the newly formed unions fail to reach an agreement within a limited time frame, a federal government arbitrator must step in to mediate the contract so that a deal is reached—even if the outcome is not ideal for either party.

On Tuesday, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) said he would oppose the union “card-check” measure and, without his support, the legislation would likely fail in the Senate. Noting that he may very well be the “deciding vote,” Specter, who was the only Republican to vote for cloture in the previous Congress, says he is against the Act because it “will result in further job losses.” Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Costco, and several other large corporations agree. (It should be noted that Specter faces a stiff primary challenge from his right flank in 2010.) Whole Foods CEO John Mackey told the Washington Post on Sunday that the binding arbitration clause is “not the way we normally do things in the United States” and that allowing workers to organize without a secret ballot “violates a bedrock principle of American democracy.”

While corporations certainly are justified to feel threatened by this Act, ultimately, the workers are the ones who should receive some long overdue benefits. While Specter may consider the legislation a possible hindrance to labor and Mackey even deems it un-American, the rebuttal should be what is more beneficial to the labor movement than empowering workers and what is more American than appealing to the government for the rights of its citizens? According to Change to Win, low-wage workers only earn 83 cents on the dollar of what they were earning 35 years ago. What’s more is that Pennsylvania State University’s Poverty in America Project concludes that “in 2003, almost 25% of the nation’s counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments-all measures of economic distress.” Most of these counties are located in areas with a relatively low levels of union penetration, such as the Deep South.

According to MSNBC, the vote on the EFCA might get pushed back to 2011 and  the Obama administration will be “quietly” happy since they support it but don’t really have the energy to fight for it at the moment. However, if this bill does come to vote and fails in the Senate, then compromised legislation will undoubtedly be pushed through that could do more harm than good for both employers and employees. To avoid that from happening, corporations worried about the Employee Free Choice Act should reach out to their employees and hold forums where both parties can speak their minds and try to understand each other’s positions. One of the reasons this issue has become a Congressional matter is because many large companies have at times failed to look out for the interests of their workers and put fiscal profits ahead of human capital. If these large corporations truly want to temper these regulations, then they must have an open dialogue with their employees and offer some solutions such as health care, transportation vouchers, child care benefits, higher wages, organizational tranparency, and more employee input into the decision-making processes of the organization. The only way to curb workers’ desire to unionize is to provide similar financial and non-financial benefits under a corporate business model. And, with low-wage workers who are unionized ultimately earning an average of 44% more than their non-union counterparts, even in these hard economic times it going to be a hard bargain to sell non-represented workers anything short of that improvement.

Next Page »