Yesterday, the Republican-controlled US Senate overwhelmingly vote to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. The changes would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of those in US military custody.
The Bush administration objects to the Senate's move. It is not clear why the folks who claim to be fighting on behalf of freedom, liberty and decency would feel the need to guard their right to use 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.' It's not certain why the folks pursuing the global struggle against the enemies of freedom [or whatever the euphemism of the week for the war on terrorism is] would insist on safeguarding interrogating tactics more worthy of a banana republic dictatorship.
One of the bill's co-sponsors, former prisoner of war Sen. John McCain, pointed out that the terrorists are contemptful of the Geneva Convention, treaties against torture and basic human decency. McCain insists that the United States must act in a more humane, more decent way than the terrorists. He also pointed out that American soldiers "crying out for clarity" on how to deal with detainees.
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions opposed the provision, claiming that "We do not have ... systematic abuse of prisoners going on by our United States military." Yet, if such abuse is not widespread or systematic, then surely such a clarification should present no problems to the military.
But while such abhorrent conduct may not be systematic, how can it be seen as anything other than condoned by a commander-in-chief who wants to guard jealously the right to impose such abhorrent conduct?
McCain, and other supporters of the change like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, knows that scandals like Abu Ghraib have been a terrible blow to America's international credibility, which has collapsed in the last few years.
If the administration virulently opposes even a de jure ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment, then how can it claim the tiniest shred of moral superiority over the heathens?
Kudos to Democrat and Republican senators alike for standing up for decency and American values, despite the White House's wishes. Let's hope the House does the same.
Update: Less than a day after claiming the right to torture as a presidential prerogative, Mr Bush warned (without the slightest hint of irony) against terrorists who want to wage war against humanity
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Black Star Journal
I was humbled to learn that my companion Africa blog was nominated for a Best of the Blogs. The Best of the Blogs, or the BOBs, is a series of awards sponsored by the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle. Black Star Journal has been nominated for Best Journalistic Blog - English. I'm not sure if it merits the award, but I appreciate that someone thought enough of my work to nominate it.
Paper's rationalization for shoddy coverage exposed!
I've written several entries (such as this one) complaining about The Post-Star's grossly inadequate coverage of the Glens Falls' mayoral race. All spring and summer, the monopoly daily gave blanket and near exclusive coverage to Republican candidates Bud Taylor and Peter McDevitt (though coverage of the latter was usually critical). Democrat Roy Akins and independents Esmond Lyons and Bill Berg were virtually ignored by the paper, except for token mentions that they were running.
Throughout, the paper rationalized their exclusionary coverage by pointing out that Taylor and McDevitt were facing off in a Republican primary in mid-September so it was logical to cover only them for months and months on end. Once the primary was over, readers were solemnly assured, the paper would do its civic duty and actually cover all the candidates.
The GOP primary was held over three weeks ago. In that time period, the paper did a token, if unflattering, profile on Berg (so they can say they haven't completely ignored him). I haven't seen a single article featuring Lyons or Akins... or even including them.
Glens Falls is one of the few towns in the area where most of the races for elective office are actually contested. So how come The Post-Star has decided to offer such miniscule coverage of the mayoral race and non-existent coverage of races for the city's Common Council? I've never seen the paper provide such shoddy coverage of a city election since I've been paying attention.
Are the candidates boring? Ask them questions on important issues. Are they infuriatingly vague, like Roy Akins? Press them to get specific. Just because a candidate doesn't make for great copy (or dumbed-down copy) doesn't mean you pretend he isn't running. None of them may be as visionary as Mandela or as charismatic as Reagan, but one of them is going to be the next mayor of Glens Falls regardless.
Maybe instead of thinking up enough anonymous cheap shots to transform into a blog, perhaps the venerable Fourth Estaters could ring up Lyons, Akins and Berg and talk to them about their opinions on critical issues facing Glens Falls. I'm sure this amateur hack could find the phone numbers for them.
Throughout, the paper rationalized their exclusionary coverage by pointing out that Taylor and McDevitt were facing off in a Republican primary in mid-September so it was logical to cover only them for months and months on end. Once the primary was over, readers were solemnly assured, the paper would do its civic duty and actually cover all the candidates.
The GOP primary was held over three weeks ago. In that time period, the paper did a token, if unflattering, profile on Berg (so they can say they haven't completely ignored him). I haven't seen a single article featuring Lyons or Akins... or even including them.
Glens Falls is one of the few towns in the area where most of the races for elective office are actually contested. So how come The Post-Star has decided to offer such miniscule coverage of the mayoral race and non-existent coverage of races for the city's Common Council? I've never seen the paper provide such shoddy coverage of a city election since I've been paying attention.
Are the candidates boring? Ask them questions on important issues. Are they infuriatingly vague, like Roy Akins? Press them to get specific. Just because a candidate doesn't make for great copy (or dumbed-down copy) doesn't mean you pretend he isn't running. None of them may be as visionary as Mandela or as charismatic as Reagan, but one of them is going to be the next mayor of Glens Falls regardless.
Maybe instead of thinking up enough anonymous cheap shots to transform into a blog, perhaps the venerable Fourth Estaters could ring up Lyons, Akins and Berg and talk to them about their opinions on critical issues facing Glens Falls. I'm sure this amateur hack could find the phone numbers for them.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Gray Lady's welcome change
I'm not a big fan of The New York Times but they recently announced a change that all newspapers should follow. From now on, the paper's corrections will be listed on the editorial page.
I've been critical of some segments of the media in this OD, but for the most part I think most reporters and editors do their best. I maintain my critiques of certain editorial judgements and patterns of various newspapers, magazines and television stations, but I don't think anyone is trying to get it wrong. I don't think anyone is trying to be biased. I think they're just careless or wearing blinders.
I think modern journalists and editors are in a difficult position. They are under fire from all sides. Conservatives say they are too liberal. Liberals say they are too conservative. Progressives says they are too corporate. Libertarians say they are too establishment. Smaller parties say they only cover Democrats and Republicans. Many publications are simultaneously anti-Israel and anti-Palestinian, depending on who's making the criticism. The whole 'criticizing the president's policies undermines troop morale and gives aid and comfort to the terrorists' Big Lie only increases the pressure on the Fourth Estate. Many journalists are called Bush-bashers and Bush-apologists all in the same day. Anything they write might subject them to a torrent of abuse, often vicious, sometimes personal, attacking not only their competence but their integrity.
That said, one thing that's always bugged me is that when an error in a newspaper is made, it's often a prominent part of a major article on the front page of the paper or of one of the sections. But when the correction is run, it's buried in the middle of a minor section between bingo results and barbecue fundraiser announcements.
The Times' decision to place corrections in a more prominent place is welcome change. People realize that journalists are human and are thus not perfect. I think we just want the institutions to acknowledge this, hold their hand up and say sorry, learn from it and move on.
I've been critical of some segments of the media in this OD, but for the most part I think most reporters and editors do their best. I maintain my critiques of certain editorial judgements and patterns of various newspapers, magazines and television stations, but I don't think anyone is trying to get it wrong. I don't think anyone is trying to be biased. I think they're just careless or wearing blinders.
I think modern journalists and editors are in a difficult position. They are under fire from all sides. Conservatives say they are too liberal. Liberals say they are too conservative. Progressives says they are too corporate. Libertarians say they are too establishment. Smaller parties say they only cover Democrats and Republicans. Many publications are simultaneously anti-Israel and anti-Palestinian, depending on who's making the criticism. The whole 'criticizing the president's policies undermines troop morale and gives aid and comfort to the terrorists' Big Lie only increases the pressure on the Fourth Estate. Many journalists are called Bush-bashers and Bush-apologists all in the same day. Anything they write might subject them to a torrent of abuse, often vicious, sometimes personal, attacking not only their competence but their integrity.
That said, one thing that's always bugged me is that when an error in a newspaper is made, it's often a prominent part of a major article on the front page of the paper or of one of the sections. But when the correction is run, it's buried in the middle of a minor section between bingo results and barbecue fundraiser announcements.
The Times' decision to place corrections in a more prominent place is welcome change. People realize that journalists are human and are thus not perfect. I think we just want the institutions to acknowledge this, hold their hand up and say sorry, learn from it and move on.
Monday, October 03, 2005
At least 20 die in upstate NY boat tragedy
I was saddened to hear about the capsizing of a tour boat in Lake George on Sunday afternoon, which cost at least 20 lives. The death toll was exacerbated by the fact that most of the tourists were elderly and many used walkers or wheelchairs. The circumstances of the sinking are unclear as the weather was nice and, by all accounts, the lake waters were calm. Whatever caused the boat to flip over happened so fast that the captain didn't even have time to alert the passengers so they could put on their life vests. Radio-Canada reported that a bad manuever by the captain was the cause of the disaster but did not give any details.
Apparently, this is the deadliest boat accident in Lake George history, but as Adirondack Almanack points out, not the first.
Update: Accounts of the tragedy are hard to read.
Apparently, this is the deadliest boat accident in Lake George history, but as Adirondack Almanack points out, not the first.
Update: Accounts of the tragedy are hard to read.
Strange place for on-the-job training
Two recent vacancies have hit the Supreme Court of the United States. President Bush nominated John Roberts to be the new Chief Justice (he was approved and sworn in last week). Today, the president nominated his buddy Harriet Miers, White House counsel, to fill the other Supreme Court seat.
Roberts had less than two years experiences as a judge when he was nominated; Miers has never been a judge at all.
I don't know much about Miers' ideology and Roberts came across as a reasonable nominee, but is the Supreme Court really the best place for on-the-job training?
Update: While it's true that Miers would not be the first justice in history without any judicial experience, most had some background in legal scholarship. Miers has spent much of her recent career as an advisor to George W. Bush and was praised by the administration for cleaning up the Texas State Lottery Commission when she was its chair. She also had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, according to the White House.
Roberts had less than two years experiences as a judge when he was nominated; Miers has never been a judge at all.
I don't know much about Miers' ideology and Roberts came across as a reasonable nominee, but is the Supreme Court really the best place for on-the-job training?
Update: While it's true that Miers would not be the first justice in history without any judicial experience, most had some background in legal scholarship. Miers has spent much of her recent career as an advisor to George W. Bush and was praised by the administration for cleaning up the Texas State Lottery Commission when she was its chair. She also had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, according to the White House.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Religion and politics
A friend of mine chastized me on my essay on Roy Moore and Cindy Sheehan. He considers the 'sneering tone' in which I berate the Theocracy Brigade unworthy of me. He thinks I do not come anywhere near addressing the best arguments of my opponents.
At first, my reaction was defensive; it's a bit of a reflexive action since people hardly ever send me responses to say they agree with my essays. That's part of the deal about being a public commentator: critics are usually spurred to express their objections while those agree usually don't.
The essay in question was not really about the Theocracy Brigade, but about double standards. Nevertheless, his criticisms aren't entirely off the mark and worth addressing.
In responding to my friend, I realized something: I don't think I've ever explained exactly what I mean by the objectionable phrase. One of the unfortunate characteristics of modern discourse (one I'm apparently guilty sometimes too) is that controversial terms are rarely defined by those who use them. Thus, a pro-death penalty, pro-war individual can call himself pro-life without batting an eyelash.
To my mind, the Theocracy Brigade comprises individuals who believe in the singular predominance of religion (in this country, Christianity) in all public and governmental realms. It comprises individuals who believe that the Christian Bible should be the unique basis for public policy in this country. My friend thinks this group, so defined, is too miniscule to worry about; I don't.
The primary definition of theocracy is: a government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
Theocracy is not simply a question of government run by a particular church or denomination. Some think that as long as a state is not like the Vatican then it can't be theocracy. That's clearly not the case.
Many northern states of Nigeria have adopted Islamic Sharia law as public policy. The Nigerian federal government strongly objects to this but because of the nature of the Nigerian federation and its emphasis on states' rights, the central government has little power to counter it. While these states retain a nominally secular structure (democratically-elected civilian governors and legislators), it's hard to deny the theocratic aspect of these jurisdictions.
I condede that my Roy Moore essay was not the best one I've ever written. And upon reflection, I further concede that my essays on the topic are a little more strident than the others.
The Theocracy Brigade is so preachy and exclusionary that I have little idea what their best arguments actually are. Perhaps they really do have cogent arguments that are lost in the noise of the shrill. I don't know.
At least traditional conservative thought on social or economic issues follows a certain rational set of reasoning and principles that, while I may disagree with, I can at least wrap my mind around enough to address.
The group I'm talking about simply speaks a completely different language. For example, open-mindedness, respecting minority rights, freedom of and from religion, vibrant democratic debate and pluralism are not only important to me but completely SELF-EVIDENT. The idea that judges should interpret law according to the Constitution not the Bible is SELF-EVIDENT to me.
For the group I'm talking about, the importance of the Bible and Christianity as the sole basis for laws and public policy (even where it contradicts the Constitution) is completely self-evident to them. That open-mindedness is tantamount to vacillation, moral relativism and tolerance for wrong is self-evident to them.
I apologize to my friend but I honestly don't know how to bridge that gap. I wish I did.
My friend does make one good point. I like the phrase 'Theocracy Brigade' because it accurately captures this mentality (and it's not the individuals I object to but the mentality).
While repetition is a common rhetorical device, I do concede that this particular phrase gets tiresome quickly. Part of the problem is that I can't alternate phrases because I don't have another one that really captures the sense of what I'm getting at.
Dennis, over at Moderate Republican blog, uses the phrase 'theocon.' His objections to that group are more interesting since he's an ordained minister. That phrase doesn't really grab me, particularly since it doesn't quite capture the military-like discipline, obedience and conformity that predominates.
Many use phrases like Religious Right, Christian conservative or some variation. I don't like those phrases because they're easy to misinterpret, either unintentionally or willfully. My objection is not to people who are Christian and conservative. That's perfectly legitimate.
My objection is to those who are intolerant toward those who AREN'T Christian and conservative. My objection is to those who believe the Christian and conservative are the only values that any decent person must have AND that the governments should be enforcing this.
Contemporary liberals have a condescending, obnoxious and ultimately self-defeating habit of treating everyone on the other side as stupid. Contrary to liberal stereotypes, these people are not all idiots, they are not all rednecks or whatever pejorative is in vogue.
A lot of these folks are very well-educated, intelligent, charismatic people. They're not some cariciature who can't string two English words together. Yet it's precisely because they're intelligent and well-spoken that I can't simply ignore them.
They inhabit a world that not only I don't understand but can't conceive. For example, I don't think there's any inherent conflict between rationality and faith, between science and religion, but many of these folks do and so say explicitly.
Some of these people are so exclusionary in their politico-religious sort-of Christianity that they even rail against papists, the Bishop of Rome and their anti-Biblical saints. I'd never seen or heard the pejorative papist used in contemporary discussion before, only history books and A Man For All Seasons. Talk about the psychosis of small differences! Even Muslims and atheists refer to Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger as the Pope.
I concede that I really have little idea how to counter this mindset. How exactly can you have a rational debate with someone who insists not only that 2+2=5 but that I ought to respect this, in the name of diversity, as a mere 'difference of opinion'? If anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
I can argue with traditional conservatives because I understand how they think and where they're coming from. Even when I think they're wrong. I know how to engage them. I know how to adapt my line of argumentation in such a way that might possibly persuade them. They might say, "Regulation harms health and prosperity because...." I might counter "Some regulation helps health and prosperity because..." We may disagree on means but we both share the core belief that health and prosperity are good things. At least there's that element of common ground upon which a debate can be based.
With the Theocracy Brigade (I'm sorry if the term is sounding a bit like overkill), there isn't that element of common ground. I find them far more dangerous than traditional conservative thought because at least the latter is based on principles compatible with pluralistic, constitutional democracy.
At first, my reaction was defensive; it's a bit of a reflexive action since people hardly ever send me responses to say they agree with my essays. That's part of the deal about being a public commentator: critics are usually spurred to express their objections while those agree usually don't.
The essay in question was not really about the Theocracy Brigade, but about double standards. Nevertheless, his criticisms aren't entirely off the mark and worth addressing.
In responding to my friend, I realized something: I don't think I've ever explained exactly what I mean by the objectionable phrase. One of the unfortunate characteristics of modern discourse (one I'm apparently guilty sometimes too) is that controversial terms are rarely defined by those who use them. Thus, a pro-death penalty, pro-war individual can call himself pro-life without batting an eyelash.
To my mind, the Theocracy Brigade comprises individuals who believe in the singular predominance of religion (in this country, Christianity) in all public and governmental realms. It comprises individuals who believe that the Christian Bible should be the unique basis for public policy in this country. My friend thinks this group, so defined, is too miniscule to worry about; I don't.
The primary definition of theocracy is: a government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
Theocracy is not simply a question of government run by a particular church or denomination. Some think that as long as a state is not like the Vatican then it can't be theocracy. That's clearly not the case.
Many northern states of Nigeria have adopted Islamic Sharia law as public policy. The Nigerian federal government strongly objects to this but because of the nature of the Nigerian federation and its emphasis on states' rights, the central government has little power to counter it. While these states retain a nominally secular structure (democratically-elected civilian governors and legislators), it's hard to deny the theocratic aspect of these jurisdictions.
I condede that my Roy Moore essay was not the best one I've ever written. And upon reflection, I further concede that my essays on the topic are a little more strident than the others.
The Theocracy Brigade is so preachy and exclusionary that I have little idea what their best arguments actually are. Perhaps they really do have cogent arguments that are lost in the noise of the shrill. I don't know.
At least traditional conservative thought on social or economic issues follows a certain rational set of reasoning and principles that, while I may disagree with, I can at least wrap my mind around enough to address.
The group I'm talking about simply speaks a completely different language. For example, open-mindedness, respecting minority rights, freedom of and from religion, vibrant democratic debate and pluralism are not only important to me but completely SELF-EVIDENT. The idea that judges should interpret law according to the Constitution not the Bible is SELF-EVIDENT to me.
For the group I'm talking about, the importance of the Bible and Christianity as the sole basis for laws and public policy (even where it contradicts the Constitution) is completely self-evident to them. That open-mindedness is tantamount to vacillation, moral relativism and tolerance for wrong is self-evident to them.
I apologize to my friend but I honestly don't know how to bridge that gap. I wish I did.
My friend does make one good point. I like the phrase 'Theocracy Brigade' because it accurately captures this mentality (and it's not the individuals I object to but the mentality).
While repetition is a common rhetorical device, I do concede that this particular phrase gets tiresome quickly. Part of the problem is that I can't alternate phrases because I don't have another one that really captures the sense of what I'm getting at.
Dennis, over at Moderate Republican blog, uses the phrase 'theocon.' His objections to that group are more interesting since he's an ordained minister. That phrase doesn't really grab me, particularly since it doesn't quite capture the military-like discipline, obedience and conformity that predominates.
Many use phrases like Religious Right, Christian conservative or some variation. I don't like those phrases because they're easy to misinterpret, either unintentionally or willfully. My objection is not to people who are Christian and conservative. That's perfectly legitimate.
My objection is to those who are intolerant toward those who AREN'T Christian and conservative. My objection is to those who believe the Christian and conservative are the only values that any decent person must have AND that the governments should be enforcing this.
Contemporary liberals have a condescending, obnoxious and ultimately self-defeating habit of treating everyone on the other side as stupid. Contrary to liberal stereotypes, these people are not all idiots, they are not all rednecks or whatever pejorative is in vogue.
A lot of these folks are very well-educated, intelligent, charismatic people. They're not some cariciature who can't string two English words together. Yet it's precisely because they're intelligent and well-spoken that I can't simply ignore them.
They inhabit a world that not only I don't understand but can't conceive. For example, I don't think there's any inherent conflict between rationality and faith, between science and religion, but many of these folks do and so say explicitly.
Some of these people are so exclusionary in their politico-religious sort-of Christianity that they even rail against papists, the Bishop of Rome and their anti-Biblical saints. I'd never seen or heard the pejorative papist used in contemporary discussion before, only history books and A Man For All Seasons. Talk about the psychosis of small differences! Even Muslims and atheists refer to Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger as the Pope.
I concede that I really have little idea how to counter this mindset. How exactly can you have a rational debate with someone who insists not only that 2+2=5 but that I ought to respect this, in the name of diversity, as a mere 'difference of opinion'? If anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
I can argue with traditional conservatives because I understand how they think and where they're coming from. Even when I think they're wrong. I know how to engage them. I know how to adapt my line of argumentation in such a way that might possibly persuade them. They might say, "Regulation harms health and prosperity because...." I might counter "Some regulation helps health and prosperity because..." We may disagree on means but we both share the core belief that health and prosperity are good things. At least there's that element of common ground upon which a debate can be based.
With the Theocracy Brigade (I'm sorry if the term is sounding a bit like overkill), there isn't that element of common ground. I find them far more dangerous than traditional conservative thought because at least the latter is based on principles compatible with pluralistic, constitutional democracy.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Amnestyisia
This essay is part of a weekly feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq
Earlier this week, Algeria held a referendum on a Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation proposed by President Abdelaziz Bouteflika. Allegedly 97% of voters approved the project with a reported 79% turnout... though the opposition and journalists dispute the latter figure. The opposition called for a boycott of the plan.
In 1992, the Algerian military cancelled elections that were about to be won by the Islamist FIS party and a state of emergency was declared. What followed was several years of a dirty war between the Islamist militants and the so-called forces of order. It is estimated that over 100,000 Algerians have been killed since the start of the insurgency and some 6000 have disappeared without a trace.
Bouteflika's plan gives a pardon to militants, except those who took part in mass murder, public bombings and rapes. It also offers compensation to the families of victims. The plan is controversial because gives a blanket amnesty to the Algerian military, the country's dominant institution. "The sovereign Algerian people reject any allegation aimed at holding the state responsible for the phenomena of the disappeared," the proposed charter says. Hardly anyone believes this deception.
Most notably, the Algerian plan eschews the reconciliation model of places like South Africa and Rwanda. Those places instituted truth and reconciliation commissions. Pardon was conditioned upon full disclosure of what happened. The truth was revealed and people were allowed to grieve and move on.
Bouteflika's crude attempt to buy off victims' families, or more specifically their memories, is a hard sell.
"I do not want the government to give me money to compensate the loss of my son," says one man. "I want it to tell me the truth, and why the security forces kidnapped him - not more but not less."
The Algerian model asks citizens to pretend the viciousness never happened. You can't forgive if you don't know what you're forgiving.
Earlier this week, Algeria held a referendum on a Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation proposed by President Abdelaziz Bouteflika. Allegedly 97% of voters approved the project with a reported 79% turnout... though the opposition and journalists dispute the latter figure. The opposition called for a boycott of the plan.
In 1992, the Algerian military cancelled elections that were about to be won by the Islamist FIS party and a state of emergency was declared. What followed was several years of a dirty war between the Islamist militants and the so-called forces of order. It is estimated that over 100,000 Algerians have been killed since the start of the insurgency and some 6000 have disappeared without a trace.
Bouteflika's plan gives a pardon to militants, except those who took part in mass murder, public bombings and rapes. It also offers compensation to the families of victims. The plan is controversial because gives a blanket amnesty to the Algerian military, the country's dominant institution. "The sovereign Algerian people reject any allegation aimed at holding the state responsible for the phenomena of the disappeared," the proposed charter says. Hardly anyone believes this deception.
Most notably, the Algerian plan eschews the reconciliation model of places like South Africa and Rwanda. Those places instituted truth and reconciliation commissions. Pardon was conditioned upon full disclosure of what happened. The truth was revealed and people were allowed to grieve and move on.
Bouteflika's crude attempt to buy off victims' families, or more specifically their memories, is a hard sell.
"I do not want the government to give me money to compensate the loss of my son," says one man. "I want it to tell me the truth, and why the security forces kidnapped him - not more but not less."
The Algerian model asks citizens to pretend the viciousness never happened. You can't forgive if you don't know what you're forgiving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)