It wasn't me. It was the one armed man.

So yesterday Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, "I'm a friend to the United States, but not America's [bitch] in Iraq."

First of all, it's kind of funny that he made the statement and even funnier that it was to Zalmay Khalilzad. With a name like that, you'd think we would remember him better here in the US. Apparently, he is the link between 9-11 and Iraq and a true man for America.

But I digress. According to witnesses in a private meeting, Maliki is angry that the US will not reduce violence in Iraq or turn over full authority on such matters to his government. However, what Maliki said publicly, "Iraq and the United States are committed to working together to respond to the needs of the people."

I agree with that, if by "needs of the people" what he meant was everyone but the US troops and the 60% + unemployed and those enjoying mass starvation, poverty and lack of basics. You know, skip over them and focus on the true people; the elite, the contractors, the corrupt individuals who run the nation. Those very important, very needy folks who disappear people and money in staggering amounts in the name of Democracy and US foreign policy.

According to The Financial Express:

Last Friday marked exactly the 150th day of Nuri al-Maliki's tenure as prime minister of Iraq. Usually in democracies, the performance of a prime minister and his government is measured by the first 100 days in office. Even with the extra 50 days, Maliki has failed completely...

So sure, blame the one armed man for the mess the nation is in. And hope the rest of the world is too stupid to realize that the violence by the insurgents is a symptom of a failed and botched foreign policy (called war) and not the cause.

~Lila Schow
Because Responsible Citizens Clean Up After Their Government
http://goodusgov.org/

Why Should We Care About Habeas Corpus?

As I'm sure most everybody knows by now, on October 17th, George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law and officially suspended, if not dismantled, habeas corpus. The uproar was instantaneous and furious. And rightly so. Habeas Corpus is agruably the single most important right that we, as United States citizens enjoy. Many bloggers declared the 17th of October to be the day democracy died in the United States. Though I'm not ready to declare the country DOA just yet, it is certainly one of the darkest days as far as our freedoms and liberties go, in recent history.

There are however, some folks that don't quite understand what the fuss is all about. In conversations I've had with various people recently, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what habeas corpus is and what it means to us. Scarily enough, some folks believe that with the country at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is perfectly Constitutional for a president to suspend habeas corpus That is not so. From Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."

Clearly, the United States is not in a state of rebellion, nor have we been invaded, so any attempt to declare a suspension of habeas corpus is un-Constitutional.

The Military Commissions Act (MAC) was drafted and passed by the Republican-led Congress in response to the Supreme Court ruling against the Bush White House in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The 5-3 opinion in Hamdan held that Bush did not have the authority to set up military commissions at Guantanamo Bay that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Convention. The Court further held that the commissions violated both.

So how does this all relate to habeas corpus? This, according to the Military Commissions Act:

"no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

A lot of folks have keyed in on the word "alien" in that passage. Well clearly, if you're a United States citizen, you're not an "alien" right? Uhhhhh.... no, not so much. If you are detained and declared to be an "enemy combatant" what is your recourse? Under the MAC, you can't file for a Writ of Habeas Corpus because the courts no longer have the jurisdiction to hear it. You could feasibly file a petition to prove your citizenship with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but do you really think you're going to get any help there? Under the MAC, there is no time frame imposed to hold a tribunal to determine your status as an "enemy combatant." Under the MAC, detainees are legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing takes place. Bush's White House can legally detain anybody for any length of time, without habeas corpus or any other appeal, by delaying the CSRT hearing indefinitely.

This exchange between Keith Olbermann and the preeminent Constitutional scholar in the country, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University sums it up beautifully:

OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, "a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy
combatant?

TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death. So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board.

But wait, there's more! Oh yes, and should you be lucky enough to be granted a trial, the MAC contains the following charming provisions as well... hearsay evidence is admissible. So too is evidence gathered without a search warrant. Self-incrimination is now compulsory, so if you were thinking about invoking your 5th Amendment right, think again Buster. Evidence obtained through coersion or torture... errr... in Republican-lingo, "aggressive interrogation techniques" is now admissible and evidence may be used against you that your defense is not entitled to see. A guilty verdict can now be rendered by a simple 2/3 majority of commission members present at the time of the vote.

Earlier I said that habeas corpus is arguably the single most important right we have as United States citizens. It protects the people from being "disappeared" by the government and held indefinitely without trial. The Framers saw the dangers inherent in an out of control government and to protect the people, to give us some recourse, they very deliberately included the Writ of Habeas Corpus as a safeguard. And now, with one stroke of his pen, George W. Bush has erased that safeguard.

Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU put it well, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions."

So yes, the destruction of habeas corpus is in fact, a very big deal. Anybody... you, me, your mother, brother, sister, father can be up and disappeared by our very own government at any time for any reason. And that is simply one facet on the jewel that is the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

And if that doesn't send a chill down your spine, I don't know what will.

~Kevin S.

Afwherethefuckistan*

Back in July of 2005 I wrote an article detailing the 24 acts of reconstruction in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. The cost for 24 items the US actually built or produced (I included things like the elections, you know, for padding) came to $900 million.

So, now that a year and a half has flown by, I thought I'd check the State Department's website and see what we've been up to. I mean, anyone can be excused for not getting to the rebuilding the moment the Taliban have fallen (for this editorial, I'm just going to assume that the Taliban are gone from Afghanistan. Kind of like our government and NATO are doing.), but surely, five years down the road, we must have some kick-ass schools and hospitals there. Right?

Now, the State Department breaks the reconstruction up into four groups, so I'll do the same.

Essential Services added since I last checked in April 2005:

1. Infrastructure: After a just a few days of intensive operation and maintenance training from U.S. soldiers, a platoon of Afghan National Army engineers began the practical application of their newly acquired skills: the reconstruction of Tarin Kowt road in Uruzgan Province in southern Afghanistan. As a result of the training, the Afghan soldiers learned how to operate heavy machinery such as bulldozers, graders, scrappers, rollers, and rippers (rock removers), as well as how to inspect and maintain equipment before and after its use. The Afghan platoon cut over 13 kilometers of road within two weeks.
   
2. Education: USAID’s Afghanistan Primary Education Program focuses on teacher training, accelerated learning programs for students, and textbook printing and distribution. During the first part of July, the Teacher Education Program completed the training of 425 teacher educators. These teacher educators will form the province-level foundation for nationwide in-service teacher education efforts. The participants, all of whom are teachers in the formal school system, came from Kabul City, Kabul Province, Parwan, Logar, Paktia, and Kapisa.

To sum up, Afghan soldiers plowed 8 miles of dirt in 14 days, bringing their daily average to 1/2 a mile a day. Swell. I wonder what year that was in, the website doesn't say.

We also trained 425 teacher teachers and gave them some books. Maybe. But only for July, 2005. I guess Afghani students have been enjoying a nice, long, 15 MONTH summer break.

Security added since I last checked in March, 2005:

1. Afghan National Police: In preparation for providing security for the September parliamentary elections, the six Regional Training Centers of the Afghan National Police have received shipments of new weapons for use in training their police force. The weapons distribution included 18,800 new AMD-65s – a similar weapon to the AK-47 – donated by the Hungarian government, as well as 2 million rounds of ammunition for use with the rifles donated by members of the international community. Once the distribution of weapons to the training centers is complete, the next priority is to equip the Afghan Border Police with new weapons.
2. Afghan National Army: Afghan National Army soldiers recently took part in artillery live-fire training at the D-30 Howitzer range to improve their proficiency. The D-30 Howitzer is a 3.5-ton weapon that takes a crew of seven to fire and has a range of over 15,000 meters. The training, which is conducted annually, gives soldiers the opportunity to practice firing, thus reinforcing what they have learned in school and strengthening their training. More than 120 Afghan soldiers conducted two months of training to prepare for the annual range time, including practicing crew drills and learning weapons maintenance and safety.
3. Afghan National Army: The first class of 112 basic training soldiers enrolled in the new National Military Academy of Afghanistan outside Kabul graduated on March 17. Upon completing basic training, the cadets will pursue a four-year college degree at the Academy and then be commissioned ANA officers. The newly formed Academy is the first military academy for the Afghan National Army.

Okay. Weapons, ammunition and training dispersed. Back in September of 2005. Really though, we wouldn't want to shock people living over there with too much safety and stability too quickly. Forget Maslow, just watch where you step, right?

Governance added since I last checked in February, 2005:

1. Elections: In preparation for the upcoming parliamentary elections, the National Democratic Institute hosted an all day conference August 20 for women candidates in cooperation with the Women’s Political Participation Committee. The event included 45 women candidates from the Kabul area and representatives from Afghan women NGOs. Women’s Affairs Minister, Dr. Massouda Jalal, gave opening remarks for the conference. Each candidate was able to present her platform to the conference, followed by general discussion, with an emphasis on cooperation among women.
2. Elections: On July 12, the final list of candidates for September’s parliamentary elections was released. These lists form the ballots for the Wolesi Jirga, or the lower house of the National Assembly, and the Provincial Council in each of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. The lists comprise 5,805 candidates -- 2,778 for the Wolesi Jirga and 3,027 for the Provincial Councils, with 583 women candidates. The Wolesi Jirga comprises 249 seats, allocated proportionally to the population of the provinces. Each Provincial Council has between 9 and 29 seats, also based on the province’s population.
3. Elections: On March 3, three years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan appointed its first ever-female provincial governor. Habiba Sarobi, who previously served as Minister for Women’s Affairs, will head the government of Bamiyan province. Her appointment is part of a national initiative to promote women to positions of power. Sarobi is one of three women who are now serving as government ministers in Afghanistan.

Again, all of these dates are for last year, in 2005. There is a lot of emphasis on women in the government, and there should be. However, the State Department fails to note that Dr. Massouda Jalal lost the presidency to Karzai and remains critical of the lack of role by women there, the Taliban have targeted women in power and only one women (Habiba Sarobi) heads any of the 34 provinces.

But perhaps I am merely being petty. After all, I don't believe that a democracy can be elected at gunpoint.

Economy added since I last checked in May, 2005:

1. Alternative Livelihoods: The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes reported August 29 that opium production in Afghanistan has declined in 2005 due primarily to a substantial reduction in cultivation. From 2004 to 2005, poppy cultivation decreased by 21 percent. USAID’S Alternative Livelihood Program (ALP) has contributed to this decrease by providing farmers with alternative work. In Nangarhar province, for example, ALP helped reduce poppy cultivation by 98 percent, employing 13,000 people daily in 563 villages with jobs such as cleaning irrigation canals and building flood protection walls.
2. Business development: USAID is helping to stimulate local private sector development and create sustainable employment by creating a venture capital fund and separate loan guarantee program for ex-combatants. Activities include establishing the Afghanistan Renewal Fund, the first venture capital fund in Afghanistan specifically targeting small, medium-sized enterprises; providing technical assistance in business plan development, market research analysis, and market entry; establishing the First Loss Reserve Fund, a loan guarantee fund providing participating banks a $10,000 guarantee for each ex-combatant hired by the loan applicant; and improving the quality and marketing of various products.
3. Counter-narcotics: On March 10, Afghanistan adopted the 2005 Counternarcotics Implementation Plan to target the cultivation, production, and trafficking of drugs. In 2004, the Afghan Special Narcotics Force seized more than 80 tons of narcotics, destroyed 75 drug laboratories, and closed two major opium bazaars. In addition, 20,000 Afghans are now employed by cash for work projects in Helmand and Nangarhar, with over $1 million in wages introduced into the local Afghan economy, and 440km of irrigation canals, drains, and karez water systems have been cleaned.

What? To stimulate the economy, the US has worked to give banks $10k for every mercenary and Taliban hired?

It's funny that the State Department feels opium production is on the decline. Maybe they haven't read the September 2006 article that claims Afghanistan High on Opium, Not Democracy. Of course, that's getting ahead of myself as the figures, again, are from 2005. In 2005, reports were claiming "militaristic" attempts to eradicate poppy crop is driving farmers to Taliban. and Britain's Foreign Office says the opium harvest in Afghanistan this year will be one of the biggest on record.

Now, last time the US government stopped reporting any progress on Afghanistan it was because they moved their website and didn't send me a memo. I did a quick word search on the US State Department's website and I found the following:

1. Rumsfeld Sees Promising Trajectory in Afghanistan 07 October 2006
2. NATO General Urges More Progress in Rebuilding Afghanistan 05 October 2006
3. Rice Promises Strong, "Enduring" US Commitment to Afghanistan 28 June 2006

Uh, that's not sounding too promising. Not to be daunted, I Googled Afghanistan Reconstruction:

1. CDC makes commitment to Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund UK government-backed emerging markets fund of funds manager CDC has committed $5.8m to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund. Oct 13, 2006
2. Iran criticizes inadequate aid for Afghanistan reconstruction Mohammadi in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday criticized the inadequate international assistance for reconstruction and development that reaches Afghanistan. Oct 10, 2006
3. Dutch foreign minister urges stepped up reconstruction efforts Kick-starting reconstruction in southern Afghanistan should be a priority for NATO allies.

Well, that's not promising either, but in a nation where $1 goes to reconstruction to every $9 for combat against an enemy supposedly defeated back in 2001, what can you really expect? I'm just glad Osama bin-Laden is no longer running around free on the border between Pakistan and Afwherethefuckistan.

~Lila Schow
Because Responsible Citizens Clean Up After Their Government
http://goodusgov.org/

*Footnote:
Dear David Rees,
Sorry I stole your word.








Cheers,
Lila

Hitting Back: The False Idea Of Justice

October 7, 2006 marked the 5th year in the war on Afghanistan. I didn't write about it on the anniversary because I was too pissed off. But now I'm back! And I have a story for you.

On Saturday, I took my friend's 4-year-old son, Zack, to the park to play. Somewhere during the course of the afternoon, another kid, also 4, hit him. Zack came crying to me and everyone on the playground stopped to watch.

As this is probably not the last time Zack will get hit by another child, I thought it best to try to give him the skills needed to deal with a future encounter where no parents are around.

Unfortunately, the grandmother of the girl, Sarah, who'd punched Zach, sat nearby and became very embarrassed by the attention. Zach was reluctant to my coaching, which just dragged the situation out. Finally, Sarah's grandmother had enough. She marched over, hit Sarah on the wrist and told Zack it was okay for him to punch her back. (Seems like this was not an isolated event for little Sarah).

I tried to explain my approach, but the grandmother had lost her patience for the whole affair. When Zach didn't move, she reached out, took his hand and hit her granddaughter with it. There. Even Stephven. And she stalked away while the two of us watched her, stunned.

Ah, justice, that elusive goal. Now, it's true, I didn't see the initial punch. Zach, as he claimed, could have just been playing angelically on his own and this little beast could have come up and, urged by the evil in her heart, laid him out. And maybe if Zach had punched her back, just as hard, it would have magically stopped her from hitting anyone else for the rest of her life. Right? Yeah, right.

If this child had hit without provocation, a thrashing by Zach would not have solved the problem. Because he was never her problem to begin with. But this is about Zach and not Sarah. Would Zach really have felt vindicated by punching her back? Perhaps, if he is the type of child who constantly is on the lookout for a excuse to punch. But that attitude creates a child like Sarah, not Zach. Zach just wanted an apology and not to be hit again. Which seemed reasonable. Kids mess up all the time. They need to be shaped, not branded.

Much as I love Zach, I doubt he was 100% blameless for the encounter. Which adds a whole new dimension to the problem. Unfairness. Sarah could have been delivering her own Even Stephven punch to an action by Zach. Like I said, I didn't see it, I wouldn't know. So if Sarah got punished for evening the score and doing back to a child what was done to her then the lesson of justice and fairness blew up in her face.

Burned once, the next instance of fairness on her part might be much more subtle, although just as hurtful. A painful word. A not-so-accidental shove. An ambush when no one is looking. Whatever method she chooses, we know Sarah is not going to develop into a child who can show empathy, forgiveness or justice. She will be a child who is angry, vengeful and out for a fight at any provocation. Because she has been shown that no matter the circumstances, she bound to different rules. Elusive rules. Rules that threaten her.

Now I have been criticized before for taking complex issues of the war with Afghanistan and 9-11 and breaking them down into a simple playground analogy. I am not trying to make light of the deaths suffered in September of 2001, or the subsequent deaths from October 2001 to the present. I remain appalled by the actions of men who use planes as weapons of terror against civilians.

But the idea of unfairness is what is ruining any positive outcome from our Even Stephven actions of retaliation. We have a sense of security for delivering punishment to those in Afghanistan. But it is false. It doesn't solve the problem. It creates thousands of others.

The same intelligence that couldn't save us from 19 men armed with only box cutters and a warped, exploited sense of anger and justice, told us the mastermind hid himself away in Afghanistan. Trained there. Recruited there. Dug himself the ultimate foxhole in the rocky mountains.

They told us he was supported by the government of Afghanistan. Were this the 100% truth, it would not have provided enough justice to attack that country. Because our problem isn't with the majority of Afghanis. It is with a small group of individuals who operate without regard for human life or dignity. Who remain careless toward improving the conditions of the people they rule and rejoice in the deaths of others.

Though an accurate depiction of some of the people involved, it is not the 100% truth. Torn by over 20 years of war (war that came partially funded and extended by the United States), Afghanistan was in the midst of a civil war at the time we demanded bin-Laden. There was no elected government, for the people, by the people and of the people. The Taliban steered the helm only in their own eyes. The world did not recognize them as the legitimate government of the country. The Afghanis did not either.

So how could they receive the blame? How could we punish an entire nation based on their actions. The Taliban, horrible as they were, had no direct hand in 9-11. The allowed bin-Laden to train in their country, but we allowed the terrorists themselves to train in ours. I don't recall Bush bombing Florida for teaching Ziad Samir Jarrah, pilot of flight 93, how to fly.

Killing the man responsible for killing 2,997 American's might be someone's idea of justice done. But it won't rebuild the towers, it won't bring people back from the dead, it won't make US safer. Collective punishment of 30 million people through violence, starvation, fear and contempt hurts us as well. Not just because this leads to future actions by terrorists, but because it turns us into terrorists.

A wise friend of mine once said, we resort to violence when we feel we've run out of options. In Afghanistan, we didn't even try any other options. Instead, we copied a chapter from the book of bin-Laden and brought destruction and pain to people who will now be seeking their own brand of justice.

All this, and five years after the fact, we still don't have the man we were after in first place. Five years later and bin-Laden remains free and in control of an ever expanding group of extremists, feeding off the blood of our destruction.

~Lila Schow
Because Responsible Citizens Clean Up After Their Government
http://goodusgov.org/

Our Dwindling Democracy...

I know that I've written a lot over these last couple of years about our diminishing freedoms and rights under the Bush Administration. I'm sure a lot of what I've written has been considered hyperbolic and inflammatory. And perhaps some of it was. But if there was any doubt about the intent of this Bush led White House and Republican led Congress to strip away the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed by every citizen while preserving them for a select few, those doubts should be laid to rest right here and right now. Under Bush and these Republicans, democracy in the United States is being stripped away, diminished and taken from us. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all they guarantee to our citizenry are quite literally being destroyed right before our very eyes.

Last week, along party lines, the House of Representatives passed H.R.4844, an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. H.R. 4844 requires that everybody provide a photographic proof of citizenship to vote. That means, everybody is going to be required to have a passport when we go to the polls. A driver's license is no longer going to cut it because it doesn't prove citizenship and a birth certificate won't work because it doesn't have a photograph. A passport is about the only form of photographic proof of your citizenship.

The most common question I've been asked when talking about this issue is, “Don't you want to make sure only citizens are voting?" And my answer to that is, yeah absolutely. But at the same time, we have to ensure that all citizens are able to vote as is provided for under our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Voting is one of the cornerstones of our Republic. It's a foundation of democracy. And under this bill, under this Administration, that foundation is being dangerously eroded.

This bill, if signed into law, will disenfranchise literally millions of legally registered, tax-paying citizens. Passports can cost upwards of $100 dollars to obtain. My dad got his last week for a trip he’s taking and it cost him $150 bucks. Not that these Republicans care, but not everybody in this country can afford to put out that kind of money for a passport.

How many of us know somebody living paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth? How many of us know an elderly person living on a fixed income? How many of us are or know a student that’s barely getting by as it is? How many of us know somebody on a tight budget that simply can’t afford an extra hundred bucks for a passport? I’d be willing to wager that we all know people in a situation like this if we’re not in it ourselves.

It’s only a hundred bucks for a passport, supporters of this bill say. Sure, but for how many people in this country is a hundred bucks already the choice between having electricity or being able to eat? And now they’re being asked to shell out that hundred bucks to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens of this country? This bill is immoral. It’s monstrous. It’s an abomination. It’s patently un-Constitutional and completely un-American. And yet, these Republicans passed it. What does that say about them?

It’s a hundred bucks for a passport today. What will it be tomorrow? What will the next rationalization they use for instituting a higher poll tax be? Because, make no mistake about it, this is a poll tax, ladies and gentlemen. It’s cleverly disguised, but this is the sort of tactic we saw used during the heyday of Jim Crow to deny certain “undesirables” their explicit right to vote.

I might be less upset about this bill if they provided the means for citizens to obtain a passport cost free. But they haven’t. There is no provision under this bill to provide assistance to those that can’t afford it. We’re on our own and it comes down to case of you can either afford to vote or you can’t.

This abomination of a bill passed the House but isn’t expected to make it to the Senate calendar before they recess. So we have some time to mount a fight because trust me, this bill will be back in the next session. If it passes the Senate, Bush will undoubtedly sign this into law. After that, it would fall to the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of the law. And if you think this Roberts-Alito led ultra-conservative Court is going to deem it un-Constitutional, I’d say think again.

It’s never to early to let your Senators know that we will not stand for this. To let them know that we will not tolerate the disenfranchisement of millions of people. To let them know that we will not stand idly by while they try to leave millions of people outside of our political system. Write to your Senators, call them, follow them home, do whatever you feel moved to do. And if you feel so moved, re-post this, pass this on. Let’s get the word out. We’re looking at elections a little more than a month away and I don’t feel that it’s hyperbole to say that these next few election cycles will be the most important in this nation’s history.

This is how the monied elite begins to seize total power This is how we come to have a class of rulers and a class of the ruled. This is how democracy dies, ladies and gentleman.

~By Kevin S.