TWO VICTORIES FOR THE RULE OF LAW
...and defeats for the Bush administration.
First, a federal appeals court ruled that authorities do not have the power to detain an American citizen arrested on US soil as an "enemy combattant." The panel added that the administration was free to transfer him to civilian courts.
We are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaeda poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation, noted the US Second Court of Appeals. But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum. [emphasis mine]
Later in the day, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay should have access to lawyers and the US court system. 660 people are being held indefinitely and without charge at the base as "enemy combattants."
The court declared, Even in times of national emergency... it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike.
Hopefully, neither of these verdicts will be overturned by the US Supreme Court.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
SECULARISM DOESN'T MEAN ERADICATING RELIGION ALTOGETHER
In the United States, there are regular battles on the fine line between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The generally accepted line is that the state is not supposed to actively promote one religion or even religion in general but that individuals are free to express their religious beliefs. Agents of the state are free to express their religious beliefs outside their job but are severely restricted in the workplace.
In France, they are going much further: any religious expression in a state-sponsored institution, even by those who aren't state agents, is about to be outlawed.
The French government is about to pass a law banning 'conspicuous religious signs in schools'. Although skullcaps and large crosses are also affected, the primary target of the bill is the headscarf worn by many girls and women of France's large Muslim population. 'Discreet' medaillons would be allowed.
French society is much more vehemently secular than American society. A French politician leading regular prayer breakfasts would be denounced. American polticians. The last French prime minister, Lionel Jospin, was an avowed atheist, something that no high-ranking American elected official would ever admit. The 1904 French law enshrining the separation of church and state was the fruit of a century-long bitter struggle to diminish the political influence of the Catholic Church in that country.
As a result, secularism means something different in the US than it does in France. Here, separation of church and state simply means the state should be neutral, that it shouldn't take sides. In France, separation of church and state means the state should actively promote secularism and discourage overt displays of religiosity, even by individuals.
But the looming French ban on headscarfs, supported by more than 2/3 of the population, is too much. Naturally, it's perceived as being a slap in the face to the French Muslim community; no public furors have erupted from skullcaps or crosses being worn to school. More fundamentally, it is against the spirit of a liberal, democratic society.
I also wonder how the ban squares with European and international law.
Title 1, Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states:
Section 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
And Article 18 of The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Imposing a state religion or religion in general on a diverse populace is wrong. But attacking the right of individuals to quietly express their faith is also wrong. Secularism means preventing religion from dominating politics. It doesn't mean eradicating religion altogether.
In the United States, there are regular battles on the fine line between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The generally accepted line is that the state is not supposed to actively promote one religion or even religion in general but that individuals are free to express their religious beliefs. Agents of the state are free to express their religious beliefs outside their job but are severely restricted in the workplace.
In France, they are going much further: any religious expression in a state-sponsored institution, even by those who aren't state agents, is about to be outlawed.
The French government is about to pass a law banning 'conspicuous religious signs in schools'. Although skullcaps and large crosses are also affected, the primary target of the bill is the headscarf worn by many girls and women of France's large Muslim population. 'Discreet' medaillons would be allowed.
French society is much more vehemently secular than American society. A French politician leading regular prayer breakfasts would be denounced. American polticians. The last French prime minister, Lionel Jospin, was an avowed atheist, something that no high-ranking American elected official would ever admit. The 1904 French law enshrining the separation of church and state was the fruit of a century-long bitter struggle to diminish the political influence of the Catholic Church in that country.
As a result, secularism means something different in the US than it does in France. Here, separation of church and state simply means the state should be neutral, that it shouldn't take sides. In France, separation of church and state means the state should actively promote secularism and discourage overt displays of religiosity, even by individuals.
But the looming French ban on headscarfs, supported by more than 2/3 of the population, is too much. Naturally, it's perceived as being a slap in the face to the French Muslim community; no public furors have erupted from skullcaps or crosses being worn to school. More fundamentally, it is against the spirit of a liberal, democratic society.
I also wonder how the ban squares with European and international law.
Title 1, Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states:
Section 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
And Article 18 of The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Imposing a state religion or religion in general on a diverse populace is wrong. But attacking the right of individuals to quietly express their faith is also wrong. Secularism means preventing religion from dominating politics. It doesn't mean eradicating religion altogether.
BAKER AGREES WITH BONO AND THE POPE?
I was reading an article on presidential envoy and former cabinet secretary James Baker's visit to Paris. During the trip, he tried to persuade the French government, so smeared by the administration this year, to reduce Iraq's debt. The "cheese eating surrender monkeys," whose paratroopers rescued hundreds of Americans in the Ivory Coast a few months ago, agreed to the reduction.
Baker justified the appeal by stating "The French and the U.S. government want to reduce the debt burden on Iraq so that its people can enjoy freedom and prosperity."
Perhaps the US, France and other western countries can also write of the crushing debts of African and Latin American countries as well so that they too "can enjoy freedom and prosperity."
I was reading an article on presidential envoy and former cabinet secretary James Baker's visit to Paris. During the trip, he tried to persuade the French government, so smeared by the administration this year, to reduce Iraq's debt. The "cheese eating surrender monkeys," whose paratroopers rescued hundreds of Americans in the Ivory Coast a few months ago, agreed to the reduction.
Baker justified the appeal by stating "The French and the U.S. government want to reduce the debt burden on Iraq so that its people can enjoy freedom and prosperity."
Perhaps the US, France and other western countries can also write of the crushing debts of African and Latin American countries as well so that they too "can enjoy freedom and prosperity."
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
HEY DICTATOR LOVING SURRENDER MONKEYS, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP US OUT HERE?
I see President Bush's envoy, former cabinet secretary James Baker, is in Paris asking the French to write off Iraqi debt. The visit occurs only days after the administration announced that France, among other countries, could not bid on reconstruction contracts for Iraq.
Translation of the administration's message: "You're a bunch of craven dictator-appeasing idiots, now could please give us a hand here?"
Still further evidence that they just don't get it. I don't know if they could be more obtuse if they were actively trying to anger the rest of the world.
I see President Bush's envoy, former cabinet secretary James Baker, is in Paris asking the French to write off Iraqi debt. The visit occurs only days after the administration announced that France, among other countries, could not bid on reconstruction contracts for Iraq.
Translation of the administration's message: "You're a bunch of craven dictator-appeasing idiots, now could please give us a hand here?"
Still further evidence that they just don't get it. I don't know if they could be more obtuse if they were actively trying to anger the rest of the world.
Monday, December 15, 2003
'NO PECULIARLY AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS'
I read an interesting article in South Africa's Daily Mail and Guardian concerning the Zimbabwe situation* entitled Tutu 'baffled' at Zimbabwe debacle. In it, Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu didn't think the decision to continue Zimbabwe's exclusion from the Commonwealth was unjustified (a point now academic, due to Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the organization).
He disagrees with his country's president, Thabo Mbeki, who claimed that Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe was treated badly. President Mbeki even reportedly suggested that Mugabe's seizure of white owned farms was "perhaps inevitable" (even though this is perhaps the least direct of his many crimes). The South African leader also suggested the Commonwealth's decision was designed to protect "white, settler, colonial kith and kin" thus deflecting attention from the miserable failure of his so-called 'softly softly' policy for gently persuading Mugabe to become a warm and fuzzy teddy bear. You'd think President Mbeki would be leading the charge to pressure Mugabe since Zimbabwe's collapse has a direct effect on South Africa's economy; further, Mbeki's spirited defense of a thug like Mugabe is at odds with the South African leader's vision of an 'African renaissance.'
Archbishop Tutu, for his part, noted:
"We have great expectations of the peer-review system of the African Union but it will be a futile exercise if we are not ready to condemn human rights violations unequivocally without fear or favour whatever the struggle credentials of the perpetrator. Human rights are human rights and they are of universal validity or they are nothing. There are no peculiarly African human rights. What has been reported as happening in Zimbabwe is totally unacceptable and reprehensible and we ought to say so regretting that it should have been necessary to condemn erstwhile comrades."
*-For more on the domestic situation in Zimbabwe, see Mugabe to cede favorite scapegoat? Unlikely..
I read an interesting article in South Africa's Daily Mail and Guardian concerning the Zimbabwe situation* entitled Tutu 'baffled' at Zimbabwe debacle. In it, Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu didn't think the decision to continue Zimbabwe's exclusion from the Commonwealth was unjustified (a point now academic, due to Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the organization).
He disagrees with his country's president, Thabo Mbeki, who claimed that Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe was treated badly. President Mbeki even reportedly suggested that Mugabe's seizure of white owned farms was "perhaps inevitable" (even though this is perhaps the least direct of his many crimes). The South African leader also suggested the Commonwealth's decision was designed to protect "white, settler, colonial kith and kin" thus deflecting attention from the miserable failure of his so-called 'softly softly' policy for gently persuading Mugabe to become a warm and fuzzy teddy bear. You'd think President Mbeki would be leading the charge to pressure Mugabe since Zimbabwe's collapse has a direct effect on South Africa's economy; further, Mbeki's spirited defense of a thug like Mugabe is at odds with the South African leader's vision of an 'African renaissance.'
Archbishop Tutu, for his part, noted:
"We have great expectations of the peer-review system of the African Union but it will be a futile exercise if we are not ready to condemn human rights violations unequivocally without fear or favour whatever the struggle credentials of the perpetrator. Human rights are human rights and they are of universal validity or they are nothing. There are no peculiarly African human rights. What has been reported as happening in Zimbabwe is totally unacceptable and reprehensible and we ought to say so regretting that it should have been necessary to condemn erstwhile comrades."
*-For more on the domestic situation in Zimbabwe, see Mugabe to cede favorite scapegoat? Unlikely..
'ANYONE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT IN AMERICA. THAT IS A PROBLEM'
I was reading some of the Christmas cards and letters my parents received. Instead of a letter, one of the families sent a little questionnaire thing where each member of the family answered a dozen or so questions. Like favorite movie of the year, favorite place to be, etc.
The 14 year old of this family noted...
Scariest moment: Learning that anyone can become president in America. That's a problem.
And it struck me as a profound observation. I mean, we're taught lots of earnest pieties in school (as Ralph Nader noted, "we're taught to believe, not to think"). Most of these pieties bear little resemblance to reality. Like the way a bill becomes a law.
But it turns out that one of them, that anyone can become president, is actually true. And it makes you feel warm and fuzzy and proud. Until you realize the implications. Being president is a damned hard job. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person but I sure as hell couldn't do it. But if anyone, any ordinary joe with few qualifications, can become president, what happens when he finds out how bloody hard the job is? When he discovers that he's in over his head?
That's the irony of our fascination with "ordinary" politicians. Even patricians like Howard Dean, George W. Bush and John Kerry have to prove they can suck down a beer and shoot the breeze with Joe Sixpacks from Bangor to Cheyenne. A politician who spoke more of Beethoven than NASCAR, who watched PBS or the History Channel rather than Joe Millionaire or American Idol, they'd be dismissed as, gasp, an ELITIST!!
We venerate politicians who are ordinary people, or who at least play them on TV. Then we expect them master distinctly un-ordinary situations. Joe Sixpack may wax lyrical on the finer points of Dale Earnhardt Jr once he's sucked down a few Buds, but do you really want his finger on the nuclear trigger?
I was reading some of the Christmas cards and letters my parents received. Instead of a letter, one of the families sent a little questionnaire thing where each member of the family answered a dozen or so questions. Like favorite movie of the year, favorite place to be, etc.
The 14 year old of this family noted...
Scariest moment: Learning that anyone can become president in America. That's a problem.
And it struck me as a profound observation. I mean, we're taught lots of earnest pieties in school (as Ralph Nader noted, "we're taught to believe, not to think"). Most of these pieties bear little resemblance to reality. Like the way a bill becomes a law.
But it turns out that one of them, that anyone can become president, is actually true. And it makes you feel warm and fuzzy and proud. Until you realize the implications. Being president is a damned hard job. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person but I sure as hell couldn't do it. But if anyone, any ordinary joe with few qualifications, can become president, what happens when he finds out how bloody hard the job is? When he discovers that he's in over his head?
That's the irony of our fascination with "ordinary" politicians. Even patricians like Howard Dean, George W. Bush and John Kerry have to prove they can suck down a beer and shoot the breeze with Joe Sixpacks from Bangor to Cheyenne. A politician who spoke more of Beethoven than NASCAR, who watched PBS or the History Channel rather than Joe Millionaire or American Idol, they'd be dismissed as, gasp, an ELITIST!!
We venerate politicians who are ordinary people, or who at least play them on TV. Then we expect them master distinctly un-ordinary situations. Joe Sixpack may wax lyrical on the finer points of Dale Earnhardt Jr once he's sucked down a few Buds, but do you really want his finger on the nuclear trigger?
Sunday, December 14, 2003
ON SADDAM'S ENCAPURATION
A combatative neo-conservative guest on the BBC pontificated on the potential effect of Saddam's 'encapturation.' Apparently, right wingers worship of the president extends to language. Imaginize that!
Said guest insisted that even if we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, the war was still a wonderful thing because "24 million Iraqis were liberated."
I'm sure it'll be great for the Iraqis, once they get water, electricity and other basic services restored. It'll also be good for international justice, assuming he's given something vaguely resembling a fair trial. Hopefully, this will bury once and for all the notion that a former head of state has some sort of imm/punity for crimes against humanity.
Yet I personally don't feel any different. The weapons of mass destruction are still unaccounted for and they were supposedly the primary reason we went to war.
If we can't find them, then this means one of two things. Either a) they're still out there, unaccounted for, possibly still in the hands of `cbad guys or b) they never were there to begin with, in which case the war was based on either an overt lie or horribly inaccurate intelligence.
Bye bye Saddam. One dictator down, a few dozen to go.
Incidentally, was it just me or did dissheveled Saddam bear a striking resemblance to the Unabomber?
A combatative neo-conservative guest on the BBC pontificated on the potential effect of Saddam's 'encapturation.' Apparently, right wingers worship of the president extends to language. Imaginize that!
Said guest insisted that even if we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, the war was still a wonderful thing because "24 million Iraqis were liberated."
I'm sure it'll be great for the Iraqis, once they get water, electricity and other basic services restored. It'll also be good for international justice, assuming he's given something vaguely resembling a fair trial. Hopefully, this will bury once and for all the notion that a former head of state has some sort of imm/punity for crimes against humanity.
Yet I personally don't feel any different. The weapons of mass destruction are still unaccounted for and they were supposedly the primary reason we went to war.
If we can't find them, then this means one of two things. Either a) they're still out there, unaccounted for, possibly still in the hands of `cbad guys or b) they never were there to begin with, in which case the war was based on either an overt lie or horribly inaccurate intelligence.
Bye bye Saddam. One dictator down, a few dozen to go.
Incidentally, was it just me or did dissheveled Saddam bear a striking resemblance to the Unabomber?
Friday, December 12, 2003
THE VALUE OF FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES
I read how Haliburton was criticized for overcharging the US government to the tune of $61 million for gasoline imported from Kuwait to Iraq. Haliburton is a corporation formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney. The company is not accused of profiting from the overcharge. It reportedly paid too much money to a subcontractor in Kuwait and will probably have to eat the loss. However, the real eye-opener here is that the vice president's former company was award the $15.6 billion (15,600,000,000) contract on a non-competitive, no-bid basis.
I read how Haliburton was criticized for overcharging the US government to the tune of $61 million for gasoline imported from Kuwait to Iraq. Haliburton is a corporation formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney. The company is not accused of profiting from the overcharge. It reportedly paid too much money to a subcontractor in Kuwait and will probably have to eat the loss. However, the real eye-opener here is that the vice president's former company was award the $15.6 billion (15,600,000,000) contract on a non-competitive, no-bid basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)