Not sad but not excited by the death of a terrorist

When something is thrown upwards, there is a point at which the object’s upward momentum and the force of gravity are equal. For some time period — even if it is incredibly small — when the object hangs suspended. That is the emotional space I have occupied since learning about Osama bin Laden’s death. Any relief/closure/positive emotion has been tempered by my normal instinct that death is bad and deaths, even of bad people, are not meant to be celebrated.

Now, I should confess a few things. I grew up on Long Island and live in Washington, DC. My emotional location vis-à-vis 9/11 had been a strange place. It remains one of the worst days of my life and few things would make me happier than seeing the towers built back exactly the way there were and despite knowing New York as well as I know any place on earth, I still get lost in lower Manhattan sometimes because I still look for the WTC when I get out of the subway. Growing up, that was my compass in the city. It may always be. These are the reasons, my liberal friends tell me my opinion of anything 9/11 related is less valid because I am too close to it.

At the same time, I will never think we should do to ourselves what the terrorists could not; destroy out way of life and take away our belief in the ideals that inspired our republic. Racial intolerance cannot be mistaken for vigilance against terrorism. We cannot convince anyone outside of the US  to believe that we believe in the importance of the rule of law if we do not apply it uniformly within the US. And the Bill of Rights is as important today as it was on 9/10/2001. These are the reasons my conservative friends tell me my opinions on this subject are less valid because I “do not understand the impact 9/11 had on America.”

You can see the paradox. One might think these opinions would give me more reason to hate Osama bin Laden but I don’t. I can’t. He doesn’t deserve that. The closest thing I have had to “joy” at seeing him be killed was when I laughed at a photo of President Obama that had the caption “I am sorry it took me so long to get you my birth certificate, I was busy killing Osama bin Laden.”

At the end of the day though, if I were to become the kind of person who celebrates any loss of life — even of someone as reprehensible as this mass killer — I just become more like them and I don’t want that.

Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you…

Everyone thought I was paranoid when I …

 

·         Was worried about a global flu pandemic…  Granted, when I prattled on about the flu I was talking about the bird flu but I was worried about infectious disease – specifically Dengue Fever and Ebla long before bird flu came along, and now this happens: Mexico City has basically shut down due to a swine flu outbreak.  This is scary because this may be the same flu that is circulating around the SW US and is eerily similar to the 1918 Spanish flu that killed millions around the world.  This is also scary because flu season should be over, at least in Mexico.

·         Said I have a phobia of velociraptors…  You may or may not have read that Florida is considered, by some anyway, to be the ‘Ellis Island’ for exotic species.  Recent events like hurricanes let snakes like Burmese Pythons to escape and breed and become a problem (they can grow to 20 feet and have been found with six foot alligators in their stomachs).  There are other reasons these animals are now all over, people buy them as pets and let them go. One such friendly critter called the Nile monitor has been wreaking havoc in Cape Coral, FL.  According to the 20 April New Yorker, they ‘often hunt in packs, like modern day velociraptors.’  Apparently, they ‘are notoriously aggressive and ill-tempered.  When corned, a monitor will stand on its hind legs and hiss,  inflating its body and lashing its tail like a bullwhip.’  Nice.  They can also travel pretty far though seem to be happy where they are… at least for now.

·         Opposed the changes to FISA…  Since its creation in 1978, the FISA court has turned down five requests by law enforcement to listen to communications but that wasn’t good enough for the Bush administration, which forced Congress to change the law in 2007.  It turns out, our spy agencies were listening in to Congresswoman Jane  Harmon (D-CA).  If they can listen to her legally, they can listen to you.

 

I don’t mean to tell you I told you so, but I did. J

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Some lessons from W

As the election nears, the media & campaigns focus more and more on, what this year is a much smaller number, undecided voters.  Personally, I see most of these people the way they were portrayed in the Daily Show Samantha Bee/Jason Jones skit from earlier in the week (www.thedailyshow.com).  Seriously, what do these people need to make up their mind?  After the longest presidential campaign in recent history, you really cannot make up your mind?  Where have you been?

This post is not for them (clearly).  There is another group, which is smaller still, of what I will call conscientious objectors.  There are some people who will vote on November 4^th for third party candidates.  Anecdotal stories may lead some to believe they have made a difference in past presidential races à la Ralph Nader in 2000 (a charge I agree with here but it could be an emotional response) and/or Ross Perot in 1992 (and I do not think he caused Bill Clinton’s victory, if anyone outside of the Clinton campaign helped Clinton it was George H.W. Bush himself).  While every person has a vote, not everyone’s vote carries equal weight thanks to the Electoral College.  The conversation about that will have to wait for another day but since it is the system we have, it is what we have to use until someone comes along with something better.  Having said that, it is critically important that people in certain states vote.  And I hope they vote for Barack Obama.  Now I understand the protest vote and appreciate it.  I do, however, think if someone lives in a ‘swing state’ and they choose to either not vote or vote for someone other than John McCain or Barack Obama, that decision is an irresponsible one.

Often I hear people say things like “Well, who we elect president doesn’t matter much because Congress controls the purse strings.”  True.  For many people, the position of POTUS is merely a figurehead.  This is where Dubya comes in and will show why I think even conscientious objectors should vote for Barack Obama.  We have learned many things from Dubya but I think the following show why who we put in the White House matters.

1.       The Supreme Court:  The next president will appoint at least one (probably more) justices to the Supreme Court and that is a big deal.  Justices do not always behave the way the person who nominated them would expect.  That’s fine.  The problem is that once they get there, they get to stay until they die (they all have excellent health insurance, FYI).  Their decisions affect our lives (see DC v. Heller, good or bad it has forced DC to change its laws).  I could almost stop there because it is just that important.  Of course I cannot leave this topic without mentioning part of the reason we are in the mess we are in today, Bush v. Gore, which is why Dubya got to move into 1600 PA Ave, NW to begin with.

2.       War:  The War Powers Act (of 1973 I believe, it was a response to Vietnam) requires the President to go to Congress before they take the country officially to war.  There are two caveats here, the president can send troops anywhere in an emergency (Reagan did it in Lebanon) and as Dubya and Cheney showed, Congress is much too easily manipulated.  Make no mistake, if Gore had gotten into the White House we would not be in Iraq right now.  They don’t call the president “commander in chief” for a nothing.

3.       The priorities of the federal government:  Yes, it is true that Congress funds the government but the Executive Branch has a lot of power.  A lot of power.  They have a lot more now than they did eight years ago, thanks to Dick “evil genius” Cheney.   They set the tone with the people they appoint to their Cabinet and everywhere else.  One Justice Department may enforce certain laws over others.  My favorite example is the Violence Women Act, which the current DoJ does not consider a priority. This is a bill to help victims of domestic violence.  During its passage a group, which sounds normal (is there any group that calls themselves ‘totally insane people for x’?) but isn’t opposed the bill.  They are the Concerned Women for America.  Totally right, wing nut jobs all the way.  You can look into them.  Their members now oversee the enforcement of this law.  This is a very small example – as is former AG Ashcroft’s decision to cover the statues at the DoJ building but never think the federal government doesn’t impact your life.  Trust your water?  One of Dubya’s first acts as president was to try to change the standards for arsenic levels in your water.  It was the only time George Will actually correctly summed up my position, which is/was that I would like our water to be as safe as possible.  Don’t drink tap?  You shower, brush your teeth, wash your clothes with what?  A Britta?  Or look at the EPA.  How long was Christine Todd Whitman there?  Not long because it was clear Dubya et al weren’t interested in the environment (and this was before the White House rejected their proposals on the Clean Air Act because they were sent in an email!).  This is not just about climate change but what species we protect and quite literally how safe the air we breathe is.

4.       Signing statements:  in my social studies class we studied the Constitution.  We learned that Congress passes bills and the president signs then into law (“I’m just a bill” is going through my head right now).  Well, when s/he signs said bill s/he can add something to the bottom that clarifies or changes the meaning and practical implications of the legislation.  Thinking maybe they taught that on a day you cut class?  They didn’t.  That’s because this doesn’t appear in the Constitution.  President Reagan was the first president to use them much and before him they were primarily symbolic.

“No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves, although they are all published in the Federal Register. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself. There is a controversy about whether they should be considered as part of legislative history; proponents argue that they reflect the executive's position in negotiating with Congress; opponents assert that the executive's view of a law is not constitutionally part of the legislative history because only the Congress may make law.

Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws. A 2007 article in the Administrative Law Review noted how some federal agencies' usage of signing statements may not withstand legal challenges under common law standards of judicial deference to agency action. ^[6]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

5.       Politicking v. governing:   There is a BIG difference.  People who are excellent campaigners may not be so good at governing and vice versa.  George HW Bush was better at governing.  His son is better at campaigning, and clearly it is where his interests lie. How many times have we read and seen how this administration has turned the DoJ into its own political police force?  Hired/fired US Attys based on their personal politics?  Granted every time we change presidents most political appointees change but they all are supposed to follow the law and Constitution not their respective parties.

6.       Lastly, because number 3 is so important, privacy.  I am a liberal. I like government. I believe it is there to do for us collectively what we cannot do for ourselves individually.  I do not think 9/11 gives it carte blanche to do whatever it wants.  I do not think they need the Patriot Act nor do I like the changes they made to FISA.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created a court to hear the government’s arguments for why they listened to conversations without a warrant.  Law enforcement agencies had up to three days of listening in before they had to consult the court and between its creation in 1978 and 2001 the court denied the government five times. 

These are some of the lessons we have learned about the Executive Branch from Dubya.  Oh, and if all that didn’t convince  you that your vote for Obama matters I have two words for you: President Palin.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Our actions matter

This has been an interesting week for the US and Iran.  Brought here to speak to the UN’s General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did himself (or Iran) any favors by continuing to make comments denying the holocaust, that homosexuals even exist in Iran and generally poking at US policy wherever he could.  The problem is while his first two comments are ridiculous, his criticism of American policy vis-à-vis our treatment of ‘enemy combatants’ and ordinary American citizens has been deplorable.

 

Here we have this idea, and I have heard it all over the US , that we are some beacon of freedom and democracy – our intentions are always good, we always wear white hats and our goal is always to make the world safe for everyone.  The main problems with that is it does not match up with our record.   We do what is best for the US.  There are a few reasons there is no shame in that alone. We all act to do whatever is best for us.  The problem for the US is that it spent the better part of the last century becoming the ‘last remaining super-power.’  That title doesn’t carry a trophy or prize but a world of responsibility.  When countries look for a role model the idea was that they would look to us.  Lofty goal, yes, was it met?  Not by a long shot.

 

It would be easy to blame the current administration – and I will focus on their wrongdoings because I was alive during them and thus remember them but also because they are more relevant to today’s issues.

 

People like to say the terrorists hate us because we are free.  In one way, that is true.  We are free – to do whatever the hell we want to whomever we want, wherever and whenever we want.  You cannot simultaneously exalt the ‘rule of law’ while abandoning it.

 

I have a hard time starting the next part of this because which is worse?  The illegal wiretappibng of American citizens?  The new rule that says any American traveling anywhere can be killed legally by their own government because they should know there may be terrorists around them?  Or the way we treat non-citizens.   Because their treatment has been the worst, let’s start there.

 

Torture is bad.  It is bad for the people being tortured, obviously, but it is bad for the people doing the torturing.  Before I muddle things up with the ‘why it doesn’t work’ argument, let me remind you that THE US DOES NOT TORTURE OTHERS SO THAT ITS OWN SOLDIERS ARE NOT TORTURED.  At a GOP presidential debate only one Republican said he opposed its use.  Surprise, surprise; it was John McCain.  A New Yorker article (look it up it was from last spring I believe) was about the hit show ’24.’  Military officials approached the show and asked them to tone down the torture, why?  Because people on the ground watch Jack Bauer (the show’s protagonist) use these methods with success and have asked ‘why can’t we do that?’   Good question:

1. The US’ use of torture sets a precedent.  Any two-bit dictator – or other nut with some power – gets the moral authority to torture anyone because, ‘hey, the US does it’ is actually a good reason, being that we are this example.
2. “They did it, so now we can.”  This was the argument Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) brought up last year in hearings with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who wrote the administration’s position on the subject.  In his briefs on how to treat the ‘enemy combatants’ at Gitmo and elsewhere he said the Geneva Convention is ‘quaint’ and does not apply to anything we do.  A bad idea given the above precedent it sets.  I know one and two are pretty much the same but it is such a big deal that it deserves repeating.
3. These tactics so not work does not work.  Guilty people, and if you are talking about some groups who see dying for their cause as a great thing that will send them straight to heaven so torture will not get these people to talk.  Innocent people with no information or training in how to deal with it may talk but nothing they say will be useful intelligence.  If you hurt (physically or psychologically) or scared enough they will say anything they think` you want to hear just to make it stop.  This is the reason numerous confessions have been thrown out in our judicial system – because police can lie to suspects and after many hours of being scared and alone, people do confess to crimes they did not commit just to get out of that situation. (Best thing about the Law & Order shows is they have educated many people about what their rights are.)

 

The erosion of our Bill of Rights is a bad thing.

 

In 1978 Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in response to fears about how the Nixon administration might have been listening in to its people.  It is a court, whose proceedings are secret – like Grand Jury proceedings, that makes sure our law enforcement has what it needs to keep us and our freedoms safe.  We have a right to privacy in this country and the Fourth Amendment protects us from ‘illegal search and seizure.’  Under FISA any law enforcement agency can listen in to any conversation it wants and can do so for three days and then get a warrant from the FISA court.  I think the number of warrants denied since the court’s creation has been about five.  Thomas Jefferson said, “When the people fear their government, it is tyranny.  When the government fears its people, it is democracy.”

 

Moreover, to me this goes to the heart of the argument that ‘they hate us because we are free.’  While I have already said I that is wrong but even if true, it seems to counter-intuitive to do whatever you can to make our citizens less free by violating our basic civil rights.

 

Back to Iran…

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems like he adds something stronger than sugar to his coffee in the morning.  Some of his comments lately included:

 

• Women in Iran are the freest people in the world.
• Iranians are the freeist people in the world.
• The Holocaust never happened.

 

The real threat Iran poses right now is what happens when it develop nuclear weapons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092802342_2.html).  The claim is their nuclear intentions are strictly for its energy potential but his administration’s credibility leaves much to be desired. 

 

The real problem is our president has given their president excuses to do terrible things to its own people and develop a nuclear weapons program and should they need a template for how to do it, President Bush gave it to them.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend