We need a truth commission

The problem with torture

 

It feels strange to have to say this because it seems so obvious but torture is bad.  Call it whatever you want – say ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ or whatever – it is still bad.  Very, very, very bad.  Saying this reminds me of an organization I heard about today (no joke, on NPR) called “People Opposed to Homicide.”  Being in DC I have heard of all sorts of associations and whatnot, there is a “Pet Owner Association,” for example, but is there a “People Who Love Murder” group out there?  I doubt it.

 

The idea of moral absolutes can be very tempting.  With them you have lots of areas that are black and white rather than grey.  My world has only a few of these.  I oppose the death penalty.  I won’t go into the thousand or so reasons but while making my life easier is NOT one of them (I mean intellectually, it does.  Should person X get the death penalty?  I don’t care if they are the Green River Killer, Pol Pot, anyone who organized the Rwandan genocide or whoever, the answer is no.  I don’t have to think about it anymore.

 

On face value, the issue of torture is another moral absolute for me.  The United States of America should not torture people.  Never.   Never times ten to the millionth power.  We are not the United States of Jack Bauer.

 

Why?

 

1.        We undermine all the good we do and represent and create nasty precedent at the same time.  We are the ‘good guys’ remember?  We trot ourselves out as the beacon of freedom and justice and democracy.  We are a force of good and light in the world.  A force like this does not torture people.  We set an example for everyone else.  If we can torture people when we like, so can anyone else.  Robert Mugabe is doing bad things to his people?  If we let this go he can hold his head up high and say “You know, I was worried about our national security and didn’t know what to do and then I heard about what President George W. Bush did to people he thought we threats and said to myself, now there’s an idea.”  And, yes I think that is possible.

2.       It doesn’t work.  VP Cheney, who spent most his time in office in I think a cave or some other place has said that the methods they used provided useful information that protected us from more terrorist attacks like 9/11.  Now I cannot prove this is not true but what he didn’t say was that this was the only way to get that same – or maybe better – information.  Many, many experts in this have said that torture is not a good way to elicit information because a, some people will admit to anything they think their interrogators want to hear to make it stop (count me in that category) or b, the terrorist groups who would have this vital information prepare to be tortured. Al Qaeda tells its members to expect it if captured.   PS to all the “24” fans out there, the military actually sent people to LA to ask its producers to stop showing Jack Bauer torture people to save the say.  They said it was hurting morale because soldiers were asking “why can’t we do the things they do on TV?”  No, I am not kidding.

3.       We don’t torture others to protect ourselves.  Let’s not kid ourselves here.  We didn’t sign the Geneva Convention because of altruism; we did it because, as Joe Biden put in a Senate Foreign Relations hearing, we don’t want our captured soldiers to be tortured.  (ok, I paraphrased)

4.       If we can do it to others, we can do it to ourselves.  This is not a thought I came up with, it was what Phillip Zelikow wrote in a memo to Condi Rice when he was one of her advisors.  He reiterated the point this week and said that once we use national security as a reason to do this against enemy combatants we risk giving our government the right to do it to citizens. Given that the Obama administration may try to reverse a Supreme Court decision that requires police to stop questioning a suspect when they ask for or have a lawyer until that person is present, I am not sure Mr. Zelikow wasn’t on to something. 

 

The more complicated question is what do we do now?  Here is where my moral absolute fails me and my world becomes grey again.  This question needs more thought but I have time.

 

President Obama cannot initiate any actions against the people who made this policy.  Neither can Congress.  To do so would just add partisan crap to an already sensitive subject.  Any attempts by the Democrats to do this would just feed the never ending cycle of political retribution that began with Watergate (and if you think I am the only one that thinks this, ask around).  This cannot be about political payback.

 

We need a truth commission modeled after the 9/11 Commission and similar to those held in Rwanda and South Africa.  We need to take the politics out of it and put the justice back in.  Seriously, it’s the best thing for everyone.

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

“We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families.”

This is the title of Philip Gourevitch’s book about the Rwandan genocide.  The quote is from a letter from some Tutsis who were hiding in a church to their Pastor.  They had been informed they were going to be attacked and wanted him to intervene.  There are two versions of his response.  He said either, “Your problem has already found a solution.  You must die.” or “You must be eliminated.  God no longer wants you.” Most of the people were killed by the Pastor and armed militias.

 

One argument the international community made during the genocide of 1994 was that the Hutu-Tutsi fight had gone on for time immemorial. It was a problem that was very much like an act of God or nature – like an earthquake – that could not be prevented or stopped.  This is what we say whenever tragedies occur for which we do not want to act.  I HATE IT!!!  By saying this we abdicate our responsibility to help other people but this does not absolve us of any guilt.  It also isn’t true.  It wasn’t true in WWII or Bosnia and definitely not Rwanda.  In fact, the opposite argument can be made about Rwanda.  The Hutu-Tutsi divide didn’t really exist until the Belgians took control of the country in the 1920’s.  That is not time immemorial.

 

There are three ethnic groups in Rwanda; the Twa, Hutus and Tutsis.  The first people to arrive in Rwanda were the Twa, pygmies who started living there about 35,000 years ago.  Afterwards they were joined by the Hutus (majority) and Tutsis (minority), who now make up most of the population.  These two groups intermarried, lived and worked together and got along.  It was not unusual for Hutus to be mistaken for Tutsis and vice versa.  This all changed when the Belgians took over in 1923.  They used the different groups to reinforce their rule.  To do this they set criteria for determining who was who.  The Tutsis were taller, lighter and had different facial features (longer and thinner noses.)  They required everyone get an ID cards showing their ethnicity.  They also said the Tutsis were descendents of the Abbysinians and made them rulers of the country.  Even then the country remained peaceful until 1959.   In the 1950’s anti-colonial sentiment was growing in most of Africa and Rwanda was not immune.  The Hutus resented the Belgians and the Tutsi aristocracy and both groups started political parties aimed at emancipation.  By 1959, tensions were running high and when Tutsi Mwami (King) Mutara III Charles died.  He died after receiving a vaccination but the Tutsis thought he had been assassinated and their forces went after a Hutu politician.  The Hutu response was swift and thousands of Tutsis were killed and many others fled into Uganda.  Again, this was in 1959 AD.  That’s thirty-five years before the genocide.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda

 

In the 1990’s Rwanda was led by President Juvénal Habyarimana.  He was a Hutu and a dictator.  Around this time the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) began a revolt from Zaire.  The RPF was made up of Tutsis and moderate Hutu.  In 1993 both sides sat down Arusha, Tanzania and signed a peace agreement that would have given the RPF a say in the Rwandan government.  They would never get that chance as President Habyarimana died when his plane was shot down on April 6, 1994.  The government then told the country to kill all the Tutsi ‘cockroaches’ and moderate Hutus who supported the Tutsis.  Over the next few weeks “Hutu Power” forces murdered at least 800,000 people.  This took approximately 90 days.  Assuming the 800,000 figure is accurate, and most groups think it could really be as high one million people, that is 8889 people a day or 370 an hour making it one of the most efficient killing sprees in history.

 

The Gourevitch book is so good because he is such a skilled writer.  The book reads like a novel, though the brutality shown in Rwanda is beyond the scope of any fiction writer.  He recounts stories of people seeking refuge in churches and being butchered there.  One church, NyarubuyeRoman Catholic Church in Kibungo Province, saw between 5000-10000 deaths in about two days in April 1994.  The site has been turned into a memorial to the genocide where the dead were left where they died.  It sounds gruesome but when you think about it, how else can you really capture the horror these people suffered?

 

This horror was compounded by the international response before, during and after the genocide.  Nothing was done to stop or prevent the killing, in fact the French actively supported the Hutu Power forces by giving them money and weapons.  When it was over, refugee camps turned into breeding grounds, training centers, money making apparatus and just about everything else for Hutu Power forces.  They actively prevented Hutus from returning to Rwanda and launched attacks on the country from outside.  Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, was the head of the UN Department of Peacekeeping.  He has admitted that he could have done more and didn’t.  He has called this the UN’s biggest failure since it was founded.  He is right.

 

One might ask why I read all these very depressing books.  I do it because I think it is important to look and see where we failed and how things could have been done differently.  Not everyone went along with the killing.  Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager, is a well known case of someone who helped other people.  He didn’t set out to save 1,000 or more people but he did.  Since then he has said that he wasn’t special, he just made the right choices and he cannot understand why others didn’t.

 

The problem we have is that countries like the US lack the political will to step in to prevent genocide.  The US response in Kosovo was the most vigorous response we have ever mounted in a situation like this and that was pretty anemic.  The take home message needs to be that we can make a difference and prevent cruelty if we want to.  Studies have been done on mob mentality and how people’s actions influence each other.  If there is a group of people and someone needs help if one person acts to help, others will do the same and if no one does anything is just reinforces everyone’s behavior.  Making sure people do not get away with mass murder also deters future murders.  Stalin said “One murder is a crime, one million is a statistic.”  He was right.  We don’t know how to deal with cruelty on the level of genocide but we should.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled programming…

Read and post comments | Send to a friend