9.28.2006

today's must-read

Today's NY Times has an editorial strongly criticizing the House's passage of the Administration's anti-terrorism bill. If you value your rights, and your life, you should read it. Among its criticism of the behavior of the Democratic party is a list of the worst flaws of the bill:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

The bill has been rushed through right before mid-term elections. The entire House of Representatives is up for re-election in one month. I cringe just to think of the attack ads, calling nay voters "soft on terrorism," that'll be coming out in the next few weeks. The Times accuses the Democrats of having "misplaced their spines," and they're absolutely right.

Maybe you're the sort of person who thinks that these actions are warranted, that strong tactics are needed to keep the country safe, that suicide bombers and terrorists forfeit their rights under the Geneva Conventions by not adhering to the traditional rules of war. I'm not going to bother addressing that argument now. What I will say, though, is that you had better be damn sure that the people you put into this legal black hole, subject to "interrogation techniques" out of the KGB's worst nightmares, are the guilty. And how can you make sure of that if you don't have trials? If you don't have review of the evidence? If the definition of "enemy combatant" broad and subjective? If you deny people their basic right to a lawyer and a review of their case? You end up with extraordinary rendition in the open, 100 miles outside of US soil. You end up with Maher Arar. How many people like him are sitting in Guantanamo? How will we ever know?

9.26.2006

that's some range in readership

A letter to the editor in this week's Economist reads:

SIR--We are Japanese-comic fans who want you to know that you made a mistake and we are embarrassed for you ("Kick-ass maidens", September 2nd). The picture you showed in your article is not of a woman but is our favourite male ass-kicker, Kenshin Himura. We understand how you got confused because he looks like a girl, but he is a boy. Feel free to consult with us on any Japanese-comic articles you do in the future.
DARLA, 14
ANTONIA, 12
KAITLYN, 12
New York

9.22.2006

and for further reading

I posted about the new journal, Democracy, a while back. Well, being a quarterly journal, they've come out with their next issue. Go read it, people! It's free! This issue has got some interesting stuff on security and the demise of American cities, among other goodies. I think it's a great idea, and I hope enough people agree that they don't go bust.

In related news, last night I got to see an odd conversation: Gara LaMarche, director of OSI's US Programs and mover of our programs to build progressive infrastructure in the US, talked with James Piereson, one of the big boys of the conservative philanthropy that propelled the conservative rise in American politics in the '80s and '90s. Piereson's major argument was that the things the conservatives were lacking in the '70s, when the Democrats were becoming less and less popular, were ideas. So that's what the John Olin foundation, under his leadership, funded over 25 years--think tanks; the Federalist society; individual research and scholarship. It was interesting--how often do you get to hear someone working fervently against your ideals stand up and say how they beat you?

Over the two hours, Piereson said two things that I found most striking:

1. He referred to the ACLU as a "progressive organization" and the Council on Foreign Relations as "the beating heart of the progressive movement" or some such; and he said foundations such as Ford or MacArthur were "progressive foundations in self-denial." At first I found this totally bizarre. The ACLU is a rights-defending legal organization, not a progressive think-tank. Its values are more like the values of the Democratic party than the Republican party, but does that make it a progressive institution? I know the ACLU doesn't think of itself that way--not out of self-denial, but just because it's not true. The same could be said of the Council on Foreign Relations. And to think of the Ford foundation--a generally agenda-less charity--as a progressive foundation seems outlandish from the point of view of someone working at OSI. What I realized, though (with the help of after-talk conversations), is that the structure of the left, and its divisions, are as incomprehensible to someone like Piereson as the structure of the right is to someone like me. My instinct is to say that this means I should do more research--but then again, since his work has been so successful, maybe I should just ignore the divisions and think of it as a war. Which brings me to #2.

2. When asked about areas of common ground, where the left and the right might be able to talk without being in "different universes," he thought about it for a while and then said there aren't any. He said immigration was the one he thought might be easiest, but really, there just isn't a lot of common ground. NO COMMON GROUND. The right isn't looking for common ground. So what have progressives been doing all these years? Looking for consensus? Trying to establish compromise? Trying to win over the right with persuasive arguments? They're not listening! They don't want consensus! Right-wing philanthropists, think-tanks, and research institutes think of this as a battle they are trying to win! They're not looking for a happy medium--they want victory! What a rude awakening that was for me. In this context, it's easy to see why progressive thought has been so defeated in the past 20 years--progressives want to build consensus. They think there's a right answer and they want to convince others that it's right, instead of just beating them. We've been handicapping ourselves by definition. So now I guess I have to make a decision: do I want to drop out of the scene and be content with my own research and intelligence? Or can I fight the dirty war?

the economist!

these people are a little crazy--but, you know, in the best way. what other analysis-based news magazine makes you laugh while you're reading about trillion-dollar deficits? this should be required reading. seriously.

a few print issues back they had a hilarious editorial that's now available online. for your reading pleasure: what would an honest in-flight announcement sound like?

9.01.2006

catchier than leakfast

i am, you could say, obsessed with brunch. i love it. i have brunch whenever i can. clearly that's out of the question during workdays. but whenever i'm around for a lazy saturday or sunday, brunch is definitely on the docket. it's so great! you don't have to wake up early. you can have breakfast food or lunch food--clearly the best of the three meals to begin with. you almost always get fruit. the coffee is good. and it's perfectly acceptable to have champagne! what more could you ask for? it's the perfect meal. and you can find out how it all began in today's slate, which traces the evolution of brunch. mmm, them's good eats!