The good news is that over the past few years I have done everything I can to infect my wife with the joys of Christmas, and just as I have learned to love Ramadan from her, she too is catching on. And while we spent the lastcouple of Christmases in the U.S. with my family there, this year we get to build our own Merry Little Christmas in Madrid. The bad news, though, the possibly traumatic news goes something like this: Continue reading →
This morning on the metro, I was listening to a stomach churning segment entitled “Dirt, Mircobes and the Immune System” on the Leonard Lopate Show with guest Dr. Joel Weinstock, chief of gastroenterology/heptology at Tufts University Medical Center. Weinstock was discussing “his research into how exposure to certain microbes may help us develop resistance to allergies and autoimmune disorders like Type 1 diabetes, asthma, and multiple sclerosis.” In particular, he explained how various living organisms, bacteria, worms and the like, live harmoniously within our bodies. Apparently, for example, a particular type of worm that was very common in our bodies at the turn of the past century, has now due to enhanced hygiene been largely eradicated to our detriment.
While most of this topic was unpleasant, I found Weinstock’s concluding remark that we as humans “are not creatures onto ourselves but colonies of organisms” ground breaking. Beside the fact that we have an obsession with the self and thinking of ourselves as unique and uniquely autonomous individuals, consider how this notion of not being a single entity but rather a colony of smaller entities (most of them kind of gross) ups the ante in the traditional conversation in metaphysics about the mind-body spectrum. It looks like the materialists and the Buddhists (who reject self outright) have the hands to beat.
Maybe no man is an island after all . . . he’s an archipelago.
While listening in shuffle mode on the metro on both legs of my commute, I was really digging the pianists but couldn’t identify who they were and couldn’t recall who had been the sidemen for either recording. Just now I checked, and much to my surprise, both albums share the same pianist and bassist, Mal Waldron and Buell Neidlinger respectively, with almost 30 years separating the two recording dates. Also, both albums share the same following compositions: Reflections, Four in One, Ask Me Now, and Skippy. Ask Me Now, fantastic all around. I had not picked up on any of these facts at all when I purchased the two albums, coincidentally at the same time: 52 and 23 years respectively after each was recorded.
Isn’t is pretty to be able to cast a stone like this:
When widely followed public figures feel free to say anything, without any fact-checking, we have a problem. It becomes impossible for a democracy to think intelligently about big issues — deficit reduction, health care, taxes, energy/climate — let alone act on them. Facts, opinions and fabrications just blend together. But the …carnival barkers that so dominate our public debate today are not going away — and neither is the Internet. All you can hope is that more people will do what Cooper did — so when the next crazy lie races around the world, people’s first instinct will be to doubt it, not repeat it.
when you have been unapologetically wrong about almost everything, all of the time over the past decade? The above coming from the blood-thirstyThomas Friedman whose passionate, factless and baseless musings were a major factor in successfully selling the Iraq war to mainstream America. Here is a guy who complains about the “next crazy lie rac[ing] around the world” but of his own past fabrications, regardless of the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis in a war unrelated to terrorism that he promoted, he brushes away with the cold-blooded “suck on this”. Friedman is just another “carnival barker” who is still allowed to have his own major news column. So what is he complaining about?
Today, Glenn Greenwald describes how the recent criminal conviction in civilian court of accused terrorist Ghailani, despite cries to the contrary from the Right, has proven that our justice system works. Not only does this case prove that our civilian justice system is both the best forum for trying terrorists and fully capable of doing so, it also highlights the underlying cynicism behind Bush’s false bravado.
Let me begin with a few basic facts about the case that the press, out of its love for sensationalism, largely ignores:
Ghailani has been convicted of conspiracy and will spend a long, long time in jail. The idea that somehow our civilian courts have given him a free ride is blatantly false. Simply, he was found guilty of only one of the accounts against him. In other words, he has not been fully absolved of all wrong doing and will do serious time.
The military tribunals would not necessarily have favored his prosecution. The same evidence that was excluded from trial in the civilian court would most likely have been excluded in the military forum, as the “current rules governing those military tribunals bar the use of torture-obtained evidence to roughly the same extent as real courts do.”
The whole problem of tainted evidence would never have become an issue if President Bush and his men had not approved torture in the first place. In other words, these impediments to trying terror suspects in both military and civilian courts are the direct result of the former president’s policies. So if the argument is that Ghailani was acquitted on the other counts because of evidentiary rules, then in legalese, “but for” the Bush White House, Ghailiani would have been convicted on all accounts. In other words, the Bush Cheney policies were the direct cause of Ghailani’s acquittal on more than 280 charges.
So take a look at that last point in view of Mr. Bush’s “I gave the order and would do it again” boasting. Mr. Bush and his Republicans have a fondness for “personal responsibility”, so shouldn’t Mr. Bush and company then recognize their responsibility in light of both the acquittal of Ghailani and the difficulties that the standing president now has in trying the remaining Guantanamo detainees? “But for” the torture and illegal detention – all proud Bush policies — these “evidentiary” and constitutional issues would certainly not be hindering due process, the rule of law, and bringing to justice those who have tried to reek havoc on our nation.
Finally, let’s revisit Mr. Bush’s courage under fire:
When American soldiers were accused of torture at Abu Ghraib, did Mr. Bush stand up for them, say he gave the order to protect American lives and would personally accept the consequences? No, he scapegoated the few “bad apples”.
When CIA operatives suddenly realized that they could all go to jail for torture, did Mr. Bush stand up and say, don’t burn the evidence? I gave the order, I will take the heat? No, he let it burn, like a criminal fleeing the scene of a crime (but with the presidential presumption of innocence).
And when the White House realized that it had to do damage control before people learned the truth about torture, did the White House courageously tell the truth about waterboarding? No, it leaked that waterboarding had been administered twice and in each case the “worst or the worst” spilled the beans in a matter of seconds. What a great, effective, efficient and necessary tool at its disposal, we all thought. Then, later we learned the whole truth that the two detainees had been waterboarded over one hundred times each. So much for the efficacy of waterboarding.
A tough guy who takes responsibility for his actions and accepts the consequences would certainly then accept either of the following sacrifices, lest he risk nothing at all:
Request a full and transparent investigation into the black sites, torture regime, and other extra-judicial practices, making the argument that he took a risk in favor of the country and is willing to accept the outcome of the investigation, even if that means criminal charges (and a sympathetic presidential pardon, a la Ford-Nixon); or
Accept that by torturing terror suspects to gain invaluable information in the short term he took a risk that the suspects would very well be later released due to a lack of admissible evidence.
But that’s not how it went down, was it? The tough guy who lied and leaked and scapegoated, now brags once the coast is clear that he did something brave and would do it again (like the rich kid who gets away with drinking and driving). And when the moment of truth finally comes – far off his watch and in the safety of his presidential library with the presidential “stay out of jail” card in hand – all of the ex-president’s men now tell us that somehow – regardless of the fact that the difficulty in convicting terror suspects in both military tribunals and civilians courts is the direct result of the Bush White House’s actions –Obama’s failure to convict on all charges is making the country less safe and as a result Guantanamo should definitely not be closed (ignoring the multiplier effect of hindering future prosecutions).
But then again, these are the same people who insist that we must return to the pre-crisis status quo and follow the same exact economic policies that got us into this situation in the first place. Feed the cancer with another cigarette.
UPDATE: Today’s (November 19, 2010) New York Timeseditorial reaches the same conclusion:
The problem was never the choice of a court. The 12 civilian jurors were not too weak-minded, as Mr. King seems to think. The judge was not coddling terrorists. He was respecting the Constitution and the law.
The problem with this case was President George W. Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Susan Hirsch, whose husband was killed in the Tanzania attack, understood that. “I can’t help but feel that the evidence in the case would have been stronger had Ghailani been brought to trial when he was captured in 2004,” she said.
And in an op-ed by Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Davis describes why the assertions about the efficacy of military commissions being made by certain Republicans are baseless and erroneous. Specifically he notes the present track record of the military commissions:
In any case, Mr. Ghailani now faces a sentence of 20 years to life. Even if he gets the minimum, his sentence will be greater than those of four of the five detainees so far convicted in military commissions. Only one defendant, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, has been sentenced to life, and this was after he boycotted his tribunal and presented no defense.
Of the four detainees who participated in their military commissions, Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who was 15 when arrested, is serving the longest sentence after pleading guilty to murder. Yet he will serve no more than eight years behind bars, less than half of Mr. Ghailani’s minimum incarceration. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver, was sentenced to five and half years in 2008 but given credit for time served; five months later he was free. There is no reason to assume that a military commission sentence will be more severe than one from a federal court.
If Liz Cheney and the rest of her clan want to ignore the consequences that daddy’s policies have had and will continue to have on prosecuting detainees, then instead of pretending we are something we are not, she should just come out and say that the U.S. is entitled to be a rogue, human rights abusing nation whenever it feels like it. That way, we don’t even need to get into these discussions in the first place.
During the first two years of the war in Iraq, my neighbor sported a large banner on his balcony that read “No a la Guerra” or “No to War”. Then last January he hung a flag of the pro-Sahrawi (Algerian and Libyan backed) Polisario, in favor of Western Sahara’s independence from Morocco. And over the past few days following the recent disturbances in the region between the Polisario and the Moroccan government, he has decided to once again hang the Polisario flag.
What I find interesting is that a person — not to mention the whole gang of self-righteous Spanish actors — who was so vehemently against one war in an Arab country when the American right claimed to be toppling a human rights abusing dictatorship is now so eager to favor another war in an Arab country, but this time with the difference that it is the Spanish left who gets to denounce a human rights abusing dictatorship. I suppose in retrospect the original slogan should have read “No a Esta Guerra” instead of the moral condemnation of war of in general.
If anything, what we learned from Iraq is that the world becomes a very wicked place when people so confidently and self-righteously believe that they have the truth on their side.
I had some time to waste this evening and feeling too lazy to read, I opted for the option of least resistance: to watch Meet the Press after pretty much having boycotted it all year for its incredibly low caliber breadth and total lack of intellectual rigor. I fast-forwarded past the David the Puppet Axelrod until landing on planet John McCain. The ever-unintelligible and increasingly incoherent John McCain in response to a question about his presence at the infamous October 2008 White House meeting to discuss the economic crisis – the one you may recall he suspended his campaign to urgently attend to – stated that he had gone to the White House only because he wanted the Republicans to be represented at the meeting. He might have forgotten that at the time the White House was Republican. As you can imagine, I immediately moved on.
Then I got to the round table made up of Alan Greenspan, Newt Gingrich, and Harold Ford, Jr. on the state of the economy; in other words, three people who have been consistently wrong about everything related to fiscal and monetary policy for the past two decades. As always, Mr. Soft Ball was the host, and as you can imagine, all of the panelists – including a forth one who had recently written a book about the crisis – all agreed on almost everything, namely that we are on the verge of a devastating debt crisis that requires immediate action. There was no evidence presented, no science, no math, not a single expert – unless you don’t considered Mr. Greenspan discredited yet. Just a bunch of guys who always and have always gotten it wrong.
Forget for a second that nobody cares about the deficit other than the politicians, that the worst thing for the economy would be to take more money out of circulation by cutting spending, or that absolutely everything that New Gingrich ever says is an absolute fabrication and that no one on Meet the Press ever calls him on it, but why is the bi-partisan logic that has failed us for almost three decades and has turned us into a banana republic continuing to prevail? If the deficit were so important, why would we increase it by 300 billion just to reward the wealthiest Americans with tax relief they don’t need? Gingrich might not remember this, but it wasn’t the average citizen that decided to invade two countries for decade long wars while lowering taxes and not paying for either. It wasn’t the average citizen who toppled the economy through misfeasance and corrupt practices. So why should the only solution ever be to make the citizens pay? Why should we have our services cut so that the wealthiest at the very top (who can afford to live without public services) and corporations can reap all of the benefits? Because the money will trickle down? How has that worked for us over the past 30 years? Answer: Banana Republic.
Special thanks to Meet the Press for making life easier for the politicians and the status quo. And instead of a leisurely Sunday evening spent on what could have been an interesting political discussion, I’ve gotten to waste it on this post.
On November 6, 1975 in what is known as the Green March, 350,00 Moroccans peacefully protested in southern Morocco to demand that the Spanish government handover the Spanish Sahara to Morocco – reinforcing the notion that peaceful resistance is more effective than other alternatives.
For an example of how the Moroccans see the liberation from Spanish colonialism – done through peaceful protest – as a proud and heroic moment of the triumph of the People against the Imperialists, check out the above video of the song “Laayoune Iniya” from the early 70s by Jil Jilala, a group that pioneered a new generation of grass roots folk musicians widely popular at the time amongst European and American granola hipsters. The song, meaning “Laayoune, my eyes” (a play on words as the city name “Laayoune” is derived from the same root as the word “eyes” and “springs”) became the anthem for the Green March and the liberation of the last remaining vestiges of European colonialism in Morocco.
And yet here they are, the Spanish granola hipsters of today, thirty-five years later, coming off as the Spanish imperialists redux.
I suppose it isn’t news that former President Bush arrogantly broke the law during his tenure in the White House, so it shouldn’t be news when he now admits with great bravado to having broken the law by personally giving the order to torture terrorist suspects.
As is so typical in our political culture chock full of politicians and journalists (the Cheney’s, Bush’s, Friedman’s and Brooks’ of the world) who worship warfare without ever themselves setting foot on a battlefield, how truly cynical for W. to pretend that he was tough enough to break the law to protect America when he never intended – nor will he ever be expected – to be held accountable for his actions.
And when Bush says that he would “make the same call again”, does he mean with the same legal risks for himself? Where is the courage if you didn’t even have to take one for the team?
Obama’s policy of “Look Forward, Not Backward” will assure that Obama too will be granted the same privilege of faux bravery and patriotism.