This is Why We Have Trials

Via the excellent Obsidian Wings. The New York Times demonstrates a simple principle: This is why we have trials. This is why everyone gets a trial. Even if you think or all your neighbors think, or the whole government and all the citizens think that it is a certain fact that a man or a woman is guilty of a heinous crime, that man or woman--regardless of alleged crime or particular citizenship or affiliation--is properly guaranteed a trial under our system of laws. That is what the rule of law is. That is what civilization is. That is what freedom is.

"Abdul Razzaq Hekmati was regarded here as a war hero, famous for his resistance to the Russian occupation in the 1980s and later for a daring prison break he organized for three opponents of the Taliban government in 1999.

But in 2003, Mr. Hekmati was arrested by American forces in southern Afghanistan when, senior Afghan officials here contend, he was falsely accused by his enemies of being a Taliban commander himself. For the next five years he was held at the American military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he died of cancer on Dec. 30. (...)

Several high-ranking officials in President Hamid Karzai’s government say Mr. Hekmati’s detention at Guantánamo was a gross mistake. They were mentioned by Mr. Hekmati in his hearings and could have vouched for him. Records from the hearings show that only a cursory effort was made to reach them.

Two of those officials were men Mr. Hekmati had helped escape from the Taliban’s top security prison in Kandahar in 1999: Ismail Khan, now the minister of energy; and Hajji Zaher, a general in the Border Guards. Both men said they appealed to American officials about Mr. Hekmati’s case, but to no effect.

“What he did was very important for all Afghan people who were against the Taliban,” Hajji Zaher said of Mr. Hekmati’s role in organizing his prison break. “He was not a man to take to Guantánamo.” (...)

The 1999 escape was a deep humiliation for the Taliban government, which blocked roads and searched houses across the country for days afterward and offered $1 million for the capture of the escapees. Two of Mr. Hekmati’s relatives were badly tortured by the Taliban after the prison break as the Taliban looked for information.

Two of the men Mr. Hekmati freed, Mr. Khan and Hajji Zaher, returned to the battlefield to lead forces against the Taliban. They both received significant American support in 2001 and worked with Special Forces units.

A third man who escaped with them was another commander of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, Gen. Mohammed Qasim.

According to Mr. Hekmati’s account in his hearing in September 2005, he organized the escape because he opposed the Taliban’s “ruthlessness and injustice.” (...)

The men escaped to Iran, where Mr. Khan provided Mr. Hekmati and his family with a house and financial support in return for his daring. Mr. Hekmati said he returned to Afghanistan only in 2002, after the Taliban were toppled and Mr. Karzai’s interim government was installed. Within a year, he was arrested."

This is the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Read more

Brothers and Sisters...

We are headed into The Iowa Caucus. And I have my problems with all of the top three Democrats: HRC is too hawkish, Edwards is too light on foreign policy, and Obama is to conciliatory and bipartisan when the modern Republicans need to be crushed (serious, bring back the Whigs). And I think we're looking at a primary fight that will lead into Super Tuesday, which I am excited about. But I firmly believe that one of them will be our next president. And all three are more liberal than any one since LBJ or possibly FDR. And I am pumped for that. We might be looking a Democrats, and liberal Democrats at that, gaining in the Congress too. All of which is the work of grass roots organizing and an American people waking up to the power of progressive, social democratic politics. Which to that say that the Revolution Will Not be Televised, Brothers and Sisters.



It will be LIVE.

Read more

Gentlemen! Gentlemen! To order!

Gentlemen, settle down. Gentlemen, can we not agree? Agree to let McNulty be McNulty?



That is all gentlemen. Adjourned.

Read more

November 19, 1863

I was gonna do this, but Brad DeLong beat me to it.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Read more

Something that I've been kicking around

I'm a fan of the blogs of economists Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong. Krugman teaches at Princeton and writes for the New York Times Op/Ed page while DeLong teaches at Berkeley and is a formal Clinton administration Treasury official. Both are illuminating and at ease writing about technical economic matters, politics, and culture. I've been trying to read more mainstream economic writing in the last year or so and both of these blogs are invaluable educational resources from well respected and reputable economic scholars.

All of this introduction is preamble to the following observation: both are extremely shrill in their opposition to the Bush administration. I mean, Professor DeLong even maintains Shrillblog, a roundup of "shrill" anti-Bush writing on the web.

My question is: why?

Neither of these guys is in any danger of voting for the Green Party candidate for any office. I doubt if either have ever attended any kind of demonstration or ever carried a picket sign. Both are pro-free markets, pro-free trade. Krugman is one of the centrist neo-liberal thinkers for whom the Washington Monthly coined the term "neo-liberal" in the late '80s/early '90s to distinguish them from actual left-liberals. These guys are the dictionary definition of "sensible" "establishment" figures. But to read their political writing you'd think that they were editors for the Socialist Workers newsletter. They hate this president and his party. Professor DeLong often ends posts with the phrase, "Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do it now." Krugman is one of the few mainstream media figures willing to use words like "lie" and "illegal" when describing the action of the Bush White House.

I'm interested in the sheer divisive power of the President. If middle of the road, pro-market moderate economists are driven to "shrill unholy madness" in DeLong's memorable phrase, then we are truly witness to one of the sorriest White Houses in years.

Read more

So that Lincoln, some America-hating hippie right?

"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy [sic]."

--Letter to longtime friend and slave-holder Joshua F. Speed (24 August 1855)

Read more

The Stories We Tell

Those of you who know me know that I idolize a certain 19th Century Illinois attorney by the name of Lincoln. And I also know that so much of what we say about him is steeped, even now, in myth and poetry. But I think that it is good for a nation to have one or two heroes that are only spoken of as heroes despite their "real world" flaws. We must make saints of men for educational purposes and I can think of no greater candidate. This is my favorite story. Here related by Harvard historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in her book Team of Rivals:

In 1908, in a wild and remote area of the North Caucasus, Leo Tolstoy, the greatest writer of the age, was the guest of a tribal chief "living far away from civilized life in the mountains."

Gathering his family and neighbors, the chief asked Tolstoy to tell stories about the famous men of history. Tolstoy told how he entertained the eager crowd for hours with tales of Alexander, Caesar, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon.

When he was winding to a close, the chief stood and said, "But you have not told us a syllable about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock...His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America, which is so far away that if a youth should journey to reach it he would be an old man when he arrived. Tell us of that man."

"I looked at them," Tolstoy recalled, "and saw their faces all aglow, while their eyes were burning. I saw that those rude barbarians were really interested in a man whose name and deeds had already become a legend." He told them everything he knew about Lincoln’s "home life and youth…his habits, his influence upon the people and his physical strength." When he finished, they were so grateful for the story that they presented him with "a wonderful Arabian horse."

The next morning, as Tolstoy prepared to leave, they asked if he could possibly acquire for them a picture of Lincoln. Thinking that he might find one at a friend's house in the neighboring town, Tolstoy asked one of the riders to accompany him. "I was successful in getting a large photograph from my friend," recalled Tolstoy. As he handed it to the rider, he noted that the man's hand trembled as he took it. "He gazed for several minutes silently, like one in a reverent prayer, his eyes filled with tears."

These Caucasian tribesmen (Muslims all) are the ancestors of so many of our "enemies" today. But they recognized the power of a good man. A man who laughed at the thunder, whose voice was like the sunrise, and whose deeds were as strong as the rock. Oh, Mr. Lincoln, that we had a thousand of you today! I fear that the old chieftain was right, and that even today if a youth was to set out for your country, he would be an old man when he found it, even though he starts in the heart of this country today.

As Tolstoy went on to say:

Washington was a typical American. Napoleon was a typical Frenchman, but Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country -- bigger than all the Presidents together.

Read more

Just disgusting.

Today the Republicans filibustered Democratic measures in the U.S. Senate that would have 1) restored habeas corpus protections to enemy combatants (I remind you that American citizens can be unilaterally declared enemy combatants and imprisoned without access to courts to challenge that imprisonment--you just go to jail indefinitely on the President's say so, nothing else, it's literally what we fought the Revolution against); and 2) the amendment to the appropriations bill introduced by Senator Webb of Virginia (who I think may be the baddest ass in these United States, no joke) that would merely require that active duty soldiers get a day of rest at home in between tours for every day spent in Iraq. Wouldn't limit the duration or number of tours, just ensure that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines can't be sent home from a long tour only to be called back to Baghdad in a couple of months for another year in that god-forsaken quagmire. You know, God forbid we let them see their kids (or parents) once in a while.
The Republicans didn't defeat these measures, they didn't even let them come for a vote. They would have lost a vote, so they stalled and filibustered. Because the health of our troops and the sanctity of our laws are of no importance to the Republican Party. They are un-American, they are a cancer on the Republic, and they make me sick. Literally. Just disgusting. I'll be writing my Senator before the day is out. Probably won't do anything. my Republican Senator, Wayne Allard, is literally one of the worst Senators out there. I don't mean that I disagree with him politically, though I do very much on this issue, but that he is bad at his job. He can't even bring home pork, or get his name on a major piece of legislation. He is bad at Senating, and this is just one more example of that.

Read more

Guess Who's Right

I'm beginning to think that the Paris Hilton schadenfreude may have gotten out of hand. I mean, yeah, she's one of the worst people in world (I'm serious about that too, Hannah Arendt taught us that true evil is banal and not spectacular) but while throwing her in jail is what would happen to anyone else that doesn't change the fact that it is still unjust. We toss folks in the slammer entriely to casually in this country and doing it to a truly loathsome person doesn't make it any more just.

Also, as much as I hate Paris Hilton for a number of admittedly silly reasons I can't help but notice that a lot of dudes are getting misogynistic in their criticism, and that's unacceptable. Hate Paris Hilton, not women. And finally, I think the whole thing has gotten out of hand because O.J. Simpson has come out as a voice of reason. Yeah, I know, we're through the looking glass on this one.
Quoth the Juice:

"When Paris Hilton was going to jail last week, more people knew about that than knew that we were sending people into space that day," Simpson said in a phone interview from Miami. "It has replaced what is real news. There was always a place for it, but it was [gossip writer] Rona Barrett. Now it is the equivalent of Edward R. Murrow reporting it today.
...
"It is about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job," he said about why he agreed to the interview. "Things have changed a lot from my trial until today. It is all about ratings, unfortunately.

"When I was growing up, to watch guys like Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley, I didn't know what they thought of the news," he added. "Legitimate news people are giving their opinions. It is hard to tell the difference between legitimate news people and Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly."

So there you have it. O.J. Simpson: more level headed and thoughtful than the news media.

Read more

Things that are unacceptable

I'm not going to really talk about this because I don't have anything constructve to say and it fills me with rage and shame and neither of those things are conducive to quality thinking on any subject. All I'm going to do is write a sentence with links to two things in that sentence, and then you can follow those links and figure it out for yourself. My only commentary is in the form of a disclaimer: No historical analogies are to be taken literally, I'm not calling anybody anything specific, I just think that we should think about the road we've apparently chosen to go down. Anyway, here you go:

We are doing this, and we are doing it here. I'm honest-to-God sick to my stomach right now.

Read more

The Virtues Of Being Number One End At The Number Two.

There's a difference between "hegemon" and "unipolar super power." Athen's was the former (by virtue of the Delian League) before Sparta toppled it, Rome was the latter before it was toppled. In the last 60 years, the US has acted as both. You will, however, note the common verb in the two descriptions. [Hint: I'm not talking about "was."]

Read more

Apparently 30% of Americans (and 100% of public officials) are affected

If you have this problem...Please, for your family's sake, get help.

Ask your doctor today.

Read more

A Heritage of Violence

I was struck by this commentary by Robert Siegel on NPR yesterday. It highlights what I think is an issue addressed rarely (or hamfistedly, e.g. Bowling For Columbine), namely the fact that integrating all these cultures into American identity totally works, but also brings on the bad with the good.
It's not, I think, that America's is a poisonous culture, or a decadent one, or any of the other usual talking points that the self-satisfied moral scold likes to trot out. Going to church won't make people like the VTech shooter better. It wasn't moral instruction that was lacking, but a fully integrated personality--the option to opt out of alienating process of striving and reset his priorities, and the support system necessary to consolidate choices in an environment that encourages goals to line up with preferences and not the other way around. And that, the absence of an environement where you can be okay with "just okay" some days, is all too American.
Of course, this is all idle speculation. Made-up answers to questions not asked; proffered in order to provoke the illusion of control into asserting itself in the middle of despair. Not unlike--but not the same as--the sick fantasies that cause kids to turn to violence as a means of reasserting their (perceived) mastery of the universe. So nothing I say means anything, and that's all too human.

Read more