If You Wrongfully Detain a Suspected Terrorist

Dahlia Lithwick's latest Guantanamo piece reminds me of a series of childrens books by Laura Numeroff that the kids love, the "If You Give A [anthropomorphic animal] a [baked good]" series.

If you wrongfully detain a suspected terrorist,
He'll ask you for his lawyer.
You'll have to keep him at Guantanamo for awhile.
He'll probably be radicalized there.
He'll go on and on about his right to access a court.
You'll probably have to suspend habeas corpus.
His Yemeni background will be enough.
There will be an act of terrorism in this country eventually.
The public will be shocked
Then outraged.
They'll expect you to "do something".
You'll probably have to interfere with the judicial system some more.
And chances are,
If your Yemeni can in any way connected to the terrorist plot,
You'll have to send him back
To Guantanamo.
Forever.

Now all I need is an illustrator!

Fox News: Defenders of Right Wing Extremism

Apparently conservatives are steaming mad at Janet Napolitano. The Homeland Security Secretary has not withdrawn the report on rightwing extremism released April 9th, nor did she disagree with its findings. The part of the report that most angers Fox News and talk radio personalities is the following footnote:

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Fox News has sounded the horns of umbrage based primarily on this statement, and they have encouraged conservatives to talk it up like it accuses all veterans of terrorism. Republican senators and representatives around the country have issued many statements chastising Napolitano and the DHS for a failure to apologize and withdraw the report. And on the heels of a successful series of tax day tea party rallies (even though, as Paul Krugman notes, they did start unconventionally from the top down, their attendance by throngs of people makes them a success), Fox News has learned that it can bolster its role as red America's megaphone, a role that necessarily takes it even farther away from the realm of objective journalism.

But there are several layers of obvious hypocrisy on this issue. First of all, at no point does the DHS report state that veterans should be or will be monitored like terrorism cells. Many conservative talking heads are insinuating that this is a likely possibility in order to drive the perception that the Obama administration is anti-soldier. This is a complete lie, and it is vile to continue misleading people in this way. Secondly, it's hard to argue that the findings of the entire DHS report are not valid. The report cites evidence that veterans have been recruited in the past to rightwing extremist groups. Much of the report notes the similarity of our current economic and political climate to the last time rightwing extremism was on the rise, which was in the early 1990s. It would be foolish to ignore rightwing extremism's affinity for veterans, just as it would be foolish to ignore Al-Shabaab's affinity for Somali-American men from Minnesota.

Thirdly, the report was not written by or even commissioned by Janet Napolitano or the Obama administration. The Bush administration got the ball rolling on the report, and like so many economic summaries or CIA summaries, this Homeland Security summary took time to develop. Conservatives are suggesting that the Obama administration only started this report as a kind of grudge against conservatives and the military, when in fact the Obama administration didn't even commission it.

Fourthly, it wasn't even the only report to be developed and released by DHS. There is a similar report that looks at the threats from leftwing extremism, which is mostly concerned with cyber-terrorism and protesters of the type found at economic summits. Conservatives rarely mention this report, which claims that leftwing extremists may "encourage recruitment of individuals with sophisticated cyber skills into their trusted circles." I don't see code monkeys (or even Iphone owners)erupting en masse with umbrage at the Department of Homeland Security.

Expect to see more mischaracterizations of minor reports in the coming years as Fox News and others start to regain their swagger by relearning how to manipulate large groups of people who don't know any better.

In George W. Bush's Final Press Conference, a Parting Jab at the Elites in Europe

A very interesting question from Monday's press conference with outgoing president George W. Bush:

One of the major objectives that the incoming administration has talked frequently about is restoring America's moral standing in the world. And many of the allies of the new President -- I believe that the President-elect himself has talked about the damage that Gitmo, that harsh interrogation tactics that they consider torture, how going to war in Iraq without a U.N. mandate have damaged America's moral standing in the world. I'm wondering basically what is your reaction to that? Do you think that is that something that the next President needs to worry about?

The still-president responded, "I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged." He went on to list Africa, India and China as regions that still cling to a generally positive view of the United States. The problem is with those "elite" Europeans.

I disagree with this assessment that, you know, people view America in a dim light. I just don't agree with that. And I understand that Gitmo has created controversies. But when it came time for those countries that were criticizing America to take some of those -- some of those detainees, they weren't willing to help out.

Well, the Europeans and I are in agreement on this one. The problem with Guantanamo is the problem with the whole War on Terror concept in the first place. Normally how it works, via the 6th Amendment, is that the accused has a right to a speedy public trial in whatever district the crime was committed in. The prisoners at Guantanamo were not picked up in the United States, and plus the United States can't pin any particular crime on the accused. This is preemptive action in work. Logically if you get detained before you commit a crime, there is no evidence against you because there was no crime.

Ordinarily such a situation would mean that the accused detainee would be released back into his own country. And this has happened for American citizens, as well as citizens of most European nations. But many of those detained could possibly face persecution and (more) torture if they were released back to their own countries, such as Yemen. And this matters because it is an international violation of human rights to release anyone to the custody of countries that have committed human rights violations.

So Europe is the one place that could take Guantanamo detainees from the United States without the latter getting accused of human rights violations. This is because Europe has roughly the same detention laws as the United States. But of course, unlike the United States, European nations have realized that a prisoner not charged with a crime has to be released, or else it's a human rights violation.

In addition, the United States insists that the detainees be indicted or put under 24-hour surveillance if they are transferred to other nations. Of course in order to get an indictment, a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime, a crime has to have been committed. And 24-hour surveillance, if you're not actually in prison, can be very costly and likely an abuse of power.

The Bush administration insists that the prisoners who aren't charged with any crime must not be released, neither in the United States nor in any other nation, because they could potentially commit a crime in the future. If Castro or Saddam threw people in prison and claimed that it was because those people could potentially commit a crime in the future, we'd all just chalk it up to the despotic rule of a dictator. Of course we wouldn't accept prisoners of those nations with a stipulation that they must be detained indefinitely.

So it comes as no surprise that England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc., don't want our Guantanamo detainees, especially if they had to continue the detainment themselves. But the reason isn't because the Europeans are jerks who criticize America without helping the human rights situation. It's George W. Bush who is the detainment jerk.

It should be noted that with the election of Barack Obama, European nations are now signalling that they would be more open to helping out with America's little torture camp problem. Barack Obama has strongly declared his intention to shut down Guantanamo Bay starting on Day 1 of his presidency, and European countries have answered his call (before he even made a call for it, no less). So maybe in the end it's not a matter of human rights issues but more of a diplomatic plea: "We'd be glad to help you out if you'd stop calling us elitist do-nothings in your press conferences."

The Failed Policies of George W. Bush

According to almost every news source in America, the Democratic Party will win big on November 4. Presidential candidate Barack Obama is far from the only Democrat who will ride into Washington on the coattails of bad feelings for President George W. Bush. Almost every Democratic candidate for office in America, fairly or not, has enjoyed a bounce in popularity by campaigning on a platform of being anti-Bush, or by linking his/her opponent to the "failed policies of the Bush administration". Indeed, George W. Bush has never had a lower approval rating than right now, partly because of the recent financial crisis. But what these Democratic candidates are not doing is reminding people what it is that is so bad about the "failed policies of George W. Bush" in the first place. If the American public remembers that it can't stand that Bush guy but can't remember why, then the "failed policies" will surely be repeated by elected members of the Government. So to serve as a reminder mostly to myself, I've jotted down 33 "failed policies" that I think have made our country worse off thanks to the 43rd President of the United States of America.

1) "The United States doesn't torture." Except when it does. George W. Bush vetoed anti-torture bills, watered down water-boarding by referring to it as an interrogation technique (like how rape is just a sexual technique), and flauted the Geneva Conventions time after time when confronted in interviews or press conferences.

2) Unfounded wars on sovereign nations. Bad intelligence that should have been ignored about WMD and yellow cake fissile material led to a war against Iraq. The previous sentence was the best-case, most P.C. explanations for George W. Bush's intentions in the Middle East. Speculation abounds as to his real reasons for war with Iraq, most of which would be inconceivable if you told it to anyone eight years ago.

3) Secrecy. Over-classification of classified documents.

4) The Patriot Act

5) Bullying. Bullying of foreign nations for support for the above unjust Iraq war. Bullying of congressional leaders for support. Bullying of the U.N. to pass the war resolution, or else. It's called negotiating when there's a give and a take, and it's called persuasion when there's a well-explained and well-grounded rationale for action. It's called bullying if threats are made and fear is induced in entities that should be our allies.

6) Over-simplification of foreign viewpoints. You don't have to be either "for us or against us".

7) "Axis of evil". Well so much for negotiation.

8) Isolating North Korea to the point that they needed to build an atomic weapon to get any bilateral negotiation with the U.S.

9) War on terror. How does one win a war against extremism? You can't kill 'em all. There are always fringe elements in even the most tightly regulated societies, like gay people in Iran, bloggers in China, and terrorists in America.

10) Pre-emptive wars. The "Bush Doctrine", I think. Even police *should* have to wait until a crime is committed to detain people. And speaking of detaining people...

11) Guantanamo Bay. And more importantly, the lack of trials for prisoners there. (I hesitate to call them "detainees".)

12) Oh wait, not "prisoners" or "detainees". "Unlawful Combatants".

13) "Extraordinary renditions". They lead to "erroneous renditions" in the absence of the law.

14) Over-reaching of executive power to facilitate illegal wiretapping. FISA courts are just not necessary anymore.

15) The Alberto Gonzales Department of Justice. Attorney firings for partisan reasons, mealymouthed testimony by most Department of Justice officials including the Attorney General himself on several occasions, the approval of warrantless wiretapping, and the attempted repeal of Habeas Corpus.

16) Incompetent "loyal Bushies" like "heckuva job" Brownie.

17) Highly competent yet highly evil "loyal Bushies" like Dick "Overlord" Cheney.

18) Anti-choice-ism

19) Anti-intellectualism

20) Anti-Europeanism.

21) Right-wing judicial nominees. I'm not talking about Roberts or Alito, which almost any other Republican president would have nominated. I mean all the other judicial appointments to lower courts that add unfounded legitimacy to an extreme right-wing judicial viewpoint by giving high-level careers to cronies. This will lead to future right-wing judicial nominees to the Supreme Court who should have gotten rejected long ago for their lack of objectivity being seen as legitimate. These juditial nominees also nearly tore up the rules of the Senate.

22) Federal Marriage Amendment. So glad that one didn't get anywhere.

23) Stem cell research. Not so much for the position (federal funds only for "existing" stem cell lines) but for the process of letting the church's viewpoint into a science decision.

24) Not signing the Kyoto protocol for anti-UN reasons.

25) While we're at it, John Bolton.

26) Sabotaging the EPA to the point where entities are now suing the EPA because it's not strict enough in regulating emissions.

27) Trying to privatize social security. How's that stock market idea looking now?

28) Increasing the national debt from about $5 trillion to about $10 trillion. This riles me up so much, I'm going to need some more bullet points about the budget.

29) Tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest of our society at a time when we were finally getting Reagan's debt under control.

30) Massive non-mandatory spending increases primarily benefitting the military industrial complex. We've got loads of money for super advanced fighter jets, but we're losing wars against people who make explosives out of pvc pipe and wire.

31) Making war spending separate from the budget. This would make sense only if the expenses were unforseeable.

32) Not addressing health care at all. Seriously, during a decade in which health care spending rose faster than any other industry, how was health care almost completely ignored by the Bush administration?

33) Well, he did address one thing. He vetoed SCHIP.

I'm sure there are plenty more policies I dislike, and I know there are plenty more policies that others dislike (No Child Left Behind, immigration). But none of this stuff gets specifically talked about by any of the Democratic candidates. We need to remember this so that we can hold future administrations accountable.

A Trivia Question

All this stuff about North Korea this week inspired the following trivia question:

The State Sponsors of Terrorism list was started in 1979 with 4 charter states. Which 4 nations were they?

Bonus point: which nation is the only nation of those original four still on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list?