Orlando Patterson on freedom

The Speech Misheard Round the World

In the 20th century two versions of freedom emerged in America. The modern liberal version emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version formally extolled by the federal government, debated by philosophers and taught in schools; it still informs the American judicial system. And it is the version most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries.

But most ordinary Americans view freedom in quite different terms. In their minds, freedom has been radically privatized. Its most striking feature is what is left out: politics, civic participation and the celebration of traditional rights, for instance. Freedom is largely a personal matter having to do with relations with others and success in the world.

Freedom, in this conception, means doing what one wants and getting one's way. It is measured in terms of one's independence and autonomy, on the one hand, and one's influence and power, on the other. It is experienced most powerfully in mobility - both socioeconomic and geographic.

It's a good op-ed, read the whole thing.

Kids these days

From an article in WAPO about inauguration attendees: "'I liked being part of history, and the passage of power,' said Moidel, who said he considers himself a conservative Democrat. 'But the long lines and being protested against. . . . There was one lady who yelled at me, 'Are you prepared to die?' I guess she thinks Bush is an aggressive leader who will get us into war.'"

heh?

Too bad this article appeared on page A25

washingtonpost.com: Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies: "President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world.

Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well."

Via some blogger I forget: "terrorist" word creep watch

ESPN.com - Team seeks millions to stay in Sunshine State: "The Marlins, though, may have a bigger hurdle on the other side of the Capitol, where Senate President Tom Lee appeared less receptive.

'I thought that we already appropriated money to help them move to Vegas,' he said. 'I was very disappointed that they publicly announced the negotiations and discussions with Las Vegas, and I don't negotiate with terrorists.'"

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "I don't negotiate with capitalists"?

Orcinus on God-Talk in the Coronation Address

here: "Some of my regular commenters have expressed doubt that religiosity like this (or that voiced by Clarence Thomas or right-wing theocrats) represents anything new or troubling. I think they're being taken in by the window dressing and not listening to what's really being said."

Jonathan Schell on Torture and Why the Alberto Gonzales vote matters

What Is Wrong with Torture:

Torture is not wrong because someone else thinks it is wrong or because others, in retaliation for torture by Americans, may torture Americans. It is the torture that is wrong. Torture is wrong because it inflicts unspeakable pain upon the body of a fellow human being who is entirely at our mercy. The tortured person is bound and helpless. The torturer stands over him with his instruments. There is no question of 'unilateral disarmament,' because the victim bears no arms, lacking even the use of the two arms he was born with. The inequality is total. To abuse or kill a person in such a circumstance is as radical a denial of common humanity as is possible. It is repugnant to learn that one's country's military forces are engaging in torture. It is worse to learn that the torture is widespread. It is worse still to learn that the torture was rationalized and sanctioned in long memorandums written by people at the highest level of the government. But worst of all would be ratification of this record by a vote to confirm one of its chief authors to the highest legal office in the executive branch of the government.

Torture destroys the soul of the torturer even as it destroys the body of his victim. The boundary between humane treatment of prisoners and torture is perhaps the clearest boundary in existence between civilization and barbarism. Whether the elected representatives of the people of the United States are now ready to cross that line is the deepest question before the Senate as it votes on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales.

Add some meow mix, and stir..

The coronation speech: "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation -- the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet, rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty."

Let us play this speech our president has given to all our captives, all over the world. We will play the speech for them, and it will break them.They shall know that Americans do not see their humiliation or despair, that the man responsible for their mistreatment believes in human dignity, human rights, and human liberty. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors." That man calls out to them, and says that "freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul." Let us play this speech to those who hunger in our dark places. Then they will understand that they are not human anymore, that there is no hope for them. If they were human, then they could have freedom, dignity, and liberty. They are in the custody of the country that wants that for all humans -- that wants to spread freedom. Ergo, they are not human.

That he can say those words, knowing what he knows about what has been done by this country, by his administration, in the name of freedom -- that he can say those words, and mean them, and believe in his great mission...

This is an incomprehensible post. I apologize. I have a headache. Some people are not people, but vermin. Everyone else gets freedom, but the vermin get waterboarding and permanent detention.

And those of us who get freedom? We get the word, sure. Words are easy. As long as we think we are free, then we're free. Right? And if in 20 years we come to see what we've done, what was done in our names, then will we say "but we were not free! it is not our faults"?

Andrew Sullivan prints some letters from his readers. "Hate to sound flip, but relax" says one. "What was being done ... is not torture by any conventional definition... At worst, we 'waterboard'. At best, they behead. I'm sorry, but these are new times with a truly evil enemy..." says one reader.

Bully on Andrew for not relaxing. Please, god, let us never relax about this.

Who let Robert Bork into WaPo?

I'm going to have nightmares tonight. This is Bork and some other guy I don't know complaining about evil activist courts and how they should keep their noses out of the war on terrorism. Here's the whole damn vile thing:

A War the Courts Shouldn't Manage (washingtonpost.com)

As speculation mounts about President Bush's nominees to the federal judiciary, and particularly to the Supreme Court, one factor that should be of paramount importance is too often overlooked. Curbing or reversing the Supreme Court's usurpation of so many domestic issues is crucial. But perhaps even more important is avoiding judicial micromanagement of America's war against radical Islamic terrorists. Already there are disturbing signs of judicial overreaching that is constitutionally illegitimate and, in practical terms, potentially debilitating.


The vast majority of war opponents and attorneys for captured terrorists are pressing for a full-fledged criminal law model never before applied to enemy combatants. Realizing that Congress and the president will not adopt their position, these litigants are resorting to the federal courts. Real abuses that inevitably occur in war, as well as in peacetime prisons, are being punished by our military, but that does not assuage critics who have an agenda other than justice. They allege that the abuses stem from the administration's legal analysis and that the analysis is contrary to the Constitution and to international norms. That is wrong on both counts.

A pair of confusing Supreme Court decisions handed down June 28 plowed the ground for astounding lower-court activism. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, involving a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of a U.S. citizen held by the military as an enemy combatant fighting in Afghanistan, was a qualified victory for the government. The court approved the use of military tribunals but held that Yaser Esam Hamdi must have an opportunity to contest his status as an enemy combatant. It left unclear how that opportunity could be exercised, and it is difficult to see how it could be without calling witnesses from the combat zone, a procedure that would divert American soldiers from waging war.

Rasul v. Bush, on the other hand, was a disaster for the war effort. Aliens held at Guantanamo Bay, not a part of the United States or within the jurisdiction of any federal court, were held to have a right to a habeas petition. The result would seem to be that captured alien combatants held by the U.S. military anywhere in the world can henceforth litigate their status in federal courts.

Some lower federal courts have not resisted the temptation to insert themselves further into the conduct of the war. In doing so, they have interfered with the war effort while fostering the false impression that the executive branch is trampling on constitutional liberties. The district court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2004) is a prime example. The judge applied the Geneva Conventions in contradiction of the legal framework laid down in Hamdi, misread the conventions and severely encroached upon the president's war powers. In Omar Abu Ali v. Ashcroft (2004), another district court outdid the Supreme Court by finding that it had, at least potentially, authority to determine the legality of a foreign government's detention of an accused dual-nationality terrorist because of an allegation that the United States had prompted the detention.

Nearly 70 years ago, the court held in a famous decision (Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. v. United States) that the executive branch's extensive prerogatives in foreign affairs are grounded in its unique expertise, information and unitary nature. Courts have neither the constitutional authority nor the expertise and information to override the president's determinations on issues such as whether we are in armed conflict or what kind of anti-terrorist cooperation we should engage in with foreign governments. For obvious reasons, the executive cannot share all the relevant information with judges. Nor has the judiciary the necessary unitary nature, unless every case is decided by the Supreme Court.

Thus, in addition to fighting legal battles in court, the administration would be well-advised to make a far stronger public case for its detention policies, which are designed not only to prevent enemy combatants from returning to fight against us but also to obtain intelligence that might save the lives of American soldiers and civilians as well as shorten the war. Although current detention and interrogation procedures can surely be improved, and additional safeguards against abuses should be adopted, these ought to be matters for the political branches. Freezing policies through constitutional rulings should be a last resort. The executive and Congress, as circumstances change and experience accumulates, can debate and resolve in a flexible manner the policy imperatives of individual liberty and America's reputation overseas, on one hand, vs. the demands of collective safety. But in doing so they must avoid trampling on the president's constitutional prerogatives. Congress should not lay down detailed prescriptions on what interrogation techniques are appropriate. And it should resist the temptation to grandstand; passing exhortations against torture is not the way to proceed.

Sensitivity to these matters and the crucial but limited role of the judiciary should be taken into account in the choice of nominees to the courts and in the confirmation process. Too much is riding on the outcome of this war -- ultimately, perhaps, the survival of Western societies -- to choose judges who are unaware of the complexities of what is at stake.

Alleged abuse

At present, Amy is allegedly abusing herself by reading George W. Bush's coronation speech. She will post a followup after the point at which the alleged abuse may or may not reach its logical conclusion, which is to say, after the alleged "event" does or does not transpire within a specified timeframe of temporal intervals.

Department of Misleading Headlines, WaPo Torture Edition

NYTimes headline on Gonzales claims that he says ‘torture by U.S. Personnel Illegal’

Attorney general nominee Alberto R. Gonzales, responding to questions about his role in setting controversial detention policies, told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that any form of torture by U.S. personnel is illegal, according to new documents released yesterday.

But Gonzales, the White House counsel who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate in coming weeks, declined to identify the techniques allowed under U.S. interrogation policies, citing restrictions on classified information. He also reiterated his view that a president could theoretically decide that a U.S. law -- such as the prohibition against torture -- is unconstitutional, though he dismissed the question as irrelevant under President Bush.

"The president has consistently stated that the United States will not use torture in any circumstances, so it is simply implausible that I would ever be called upon to address whether the president's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief would permit him to, in effect, nullify the torture statute for national security reasons," Gonzales wrote in one response. He added later: "I would approach such a question with a great deal of care."

Torture is illegal.
The president has said there will be no torture.
Although if he felt like it, he _could_ order torture.
We won't tell you how we _are_ interrogating people.
But whatever we're doing, it's not torture.
Cuz we said so.

The Biscuit family is going to New Zealand for the month of March, to see if maybe we might like living there instead.

Pentagon On Seymour Hersh

DoD News: Statement from Pentagon Spokesman Lawrence DiRita on Latest Seymour Hersh Article

The Pentagon's statements on Hersh stuff are hilarious reading. The lengths they must go to claim that he is factually wrong without actually providing any facts are impressive.

My favorite paragraph: "Arrangements Mr. Hersh alleges between Under Secretary Douglas Feith and Israel, government or non-government, do not exist.  Here, Mr. Hersh is building on links created by the soft bigotry of some conspiracy theorists.  This reflects poorly on Mr. Hersh and the New Yorker."

The "soft bigotry of some conspiracy theorists"?

Ask Not for What Laptop the Bell Tolls...

Brad Delong has some excellent advice for us all: "Remember: a machine has no mind: you cannot sense beforehand when it is about to betray you."

More Safire Insanity...

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Depressed Press:

On mainstream media's feeling that President Bush doesn't give a hoot about what we say or write: That's his loss more than ours. He may deliver an uplifting second Inaugural Address, but still does not appear thoughtful or adept at answering questions.

The reason: Bush holds quarterly, rather than the traditional monthly, news conferences. This lack of regular rehearsal costs him familiarity with issues, and costs his administration the discipline of deadlines for suggested answers. As the debates showed, Bush gets better with practice. He is not as good as he thinks he is when winging it.

Um, can we just look at what Safire is saying here? Bush's "lack of regular rehearsal costs him familiarity with issues". Actually, Mr. Safire, we expect the president to be familiar with issues whether or not he discusses them with the press. What you are saying here is that more frequent press conferences might force the president to actually know what he is talking about. This would be good because then he could give better press conferences. He just needs practice, the poor man....

Bob Herbert today

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Out of the Darkness:

From my perspective, this is a dark moment in American history. The Treasury has been raided and the loot is being turned over by the trainload to those who are already the richest citizens in the land. We've launched a hideous war for no good reason in Iraq. And we're about to elevate to the highest law enforcement position in the land a man who helped choreograph the American effort to evade the international prohibitions against torture.

Never since his assassination in 1968 have I felt the absence of Martin Luther King more acutely. Where are today's voices of moral outrage? Where is the leadership willing to stand up and say: Enough! We've sullied ourselves enough.

I'm convinced, without being able to prove it, that those voices will emerge. There was a time when no one had heard of Dr. King. Or Oscar Arias Sanchez. Or Martin O'Brien, who founded the foremost human rights organization in Northern Ireland, and who tells us: 'The worst thing is apathy - to sit idly by in the face of injustice and to do nothing about it.'

Happy MLK Day

AlterNet: MLK Jr. In His Own Words:

My favorite: "Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."

Post opposes Gonzales

The Vote on Mr. Gonzales (washingtonpost.com):

A number of senators clearly believe, as we do, that Mr. Gonzales bears partial responsibility for decisions that have led to shocking, systematic and ongoing violations of human rights by the United States. Most apparently intend to vote for him anyway. At a time when nominees for the Cabinet can be disqualified because of their failure to pay taxes on a nanny's salary, this reluctance to hold Mr. Gonzales accountable is shameful. He does not deserve to be confirmed as attorney general.

[...]

According to the logic of the attorney general nominee, federal authorities could deprive American citizens of sleep, isolate them in cold cells while bombarding them with unpleasant noises and interrogate them 20 hours a day while the prisoners were naked and hooded, all without violating the Constitution. Senators who vote to ratify Mr. Gonzales's nomination will bear the responsibility of ratifying such views as legitimate.

Because of MY phone call... (did you make yours yet?!)

On Gonzales, Kennedy Breaks With Colleagues (washingtonpost.com): "Democratic senators have been lambasting President Bush's nominee for attorney general, White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, for his role in developing aggressive administration policies for the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists. But most have said they would vote to confirm him anyway. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) broke with his colleagues yesterday and said on television that he is 'leaning against' supporting Gonzales at the moment."

Mark Fiore's newest

Truth Enhancement 1/12/05

How can this be appropriate?

Inaugural05.com :Presidential Inauguration - Donor Information: "The Washington Post Washington DC $100,000"

"accountability moment" and "we don't want to be editorializing"

Quotes to add to the little red book, from a WaPo interview with Our Great Leader:

The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.

[...]

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

Yum, propaganda. It's what's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

The New York Times > Washington > Social Security Agency Is Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision:

Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to convince the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution.

The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a 'tactical plan' for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action.

Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support President Bush's agenda.