tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19149947818061680712024-03-14T03:12:29.801-07:00Power to the PunditsIsaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-3656302819206408162012-01-12T22:22:00.000-08:002012-01-12T22:25:21.989-08:002011 in Mixtapes!<p>As the prophecies foretold, I made some mixtapes to celebrate the end of 2011! The mixtapes are thematic, with one containing "Pop, Rock, and World" and one for "Electronica & Dance". They contain only songs from 2011. The playlists are zipped, and contain .xml files that can be loaded into iTunes to preserve the playlist order (yes, I put a lot of neurotic work into the playlist order and flow!). To do that, first add the songs to iTunes. Then, click File->Library->Import Playlist and then select the .xml file within the downloaded playlist. It's super-easy =).<br /></p><p>Enjoy!</p><p><a href="http://wfurl.com/33f7ef8">"Pop, Rock, and World" Playlist:</a></p> <ol><li>Basement Jaxx & Metropole Orkest - Red Alert</li><li>TV On The Radio - Second Song</li><li>Metric - Black Sheep</li><li>Florence + the Machine - What The Water Gave Me</li><li>Aloe Blacc - I Need A Dollar</li><li>Adele - Set Fire To The Rain</li><li>Miike Snow - Devil's Work</li><li>Elbow - Lippy Kids</li><li>The Roots - One Time (feat. Phonte & Dice Raw)</li><li>M83 - Midnight City</li><li>LMFAO - Party Rock Anthem (Ft. Lauren Bennett & GoonRock)</li><li>Paul Simon - So Beautiful or So What</li><li>Friendly Fires - Blue Cassette</li><li>Glee Cast - Rumour Has It / Someone Like You (Glee Cast Version)</li><li>Lupe Fiasco - The Show Goes On</li><li>Basement Jaxx & Metropole Orkest - Good Luck</li><li>Rihanna ft. Wiley and Calvin Harris - We Found Love (Remix)</li><li>Emeli Sandé - Heaven</li><li>Toddla T - Take It Back (Feat. Shola Ama & J2K)</li><li>Jay-Z & Kanye West - Lift Off (feat. Beyonce)</li><li>Lady Gaga - You And I (Official Radio Edit)</li><li>St. Vincent - Surgeon</li><li>The Lonely Island - Jack Sparrow (feat. Michael Bolton)</li><li>Chase & Status - Blind Faith (Ft. Liam Bailey)</li><li>Breakbot feat. Ruckazoid - Fantasy</li><li>The Black Keys - Lonely Boy</li><li>Foo Fighters - Walk</li><li>Ry Cooder - No Banker Left Behind</li><li>Florence + the Machine - Leave My Body</li></ol> <p><a href="http://wfurl.com/a3ee890">"Electronica & Dance" Playlist:</a></p> <ol><li>Soulwax - Machine</li><li>ZZT - Partys Over Los Angeles (Paul Chambers Remix)</li><li>Breakbot - Shades Of Black</li><li>Justice - Helix</li><li>Daft Punk - End Of Line (Boys Noize Remix)</li><li>Shinichi Osawa & Paul Chambers - SINGAPORE MADNESS</li><li>David Guetta - Glasgow</li><li>Mumbai Science - Lotus</li><li>Cassius - I <3 U So (Skream Remix)</li><li>Nicolas Jaar - Sunflower</li><li>Switch - I Still Love You (feat. Andrea Martin)</li><li>SebastiAn - Embody</li><li>Lykke Li - Sadness Is A Blessing (Gold Panda Remix)</li><li>The 2 Bears - Bear Hug</li><li>Chase & Status - Flashing Lights (Radio Edit)</li><li>Nero - Guilt (Radio Edit)</li><li>The Glitch Mob - We Can Make The World Stop</li><li>Adele - Rolling In The Deep (Villa Remix)</li><li>Avicii - Levels (Radio Edit)</li><li>SebastiAn ft. Mayer Hawthorne - Love In Motion (Skrillex's Funkt-Out Remix)</li><li>Siriusmo - Signal</li><li>Deadmau5 - Raise Your Weapon (Madeon Radio Edit)</li><li>Loops Of Fury - I Need (Original Mix)</li><li>Jack Beats feat. John B - All Night (Original Mix)</li><li>Major Lazer - Original Don</li><li>ZZT - Zzafrika (Gesaffelstein Remix)</li><li>Swedish House Mafia Vs Knife Party - Antidote (Instrumental Mix)</li><li>Digitalism - Blitz</li><li> Joe Goddard - Gabriel (feat. Valentina) <br /> <br />I hope you have as much fun listening to these as I had making them!<br /> </li></ol>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-54528937483623479112012-01-12T21:14:00.000-08:002012-01-12T21:29:29.405-08:00"Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" or How The New York Times is Emblematic of Our Pathetic News MediaOn the exact anniversary of Congress passing authorization for force in Iraq, the New York Times public editor seriously asks whether "New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."<br /><br />This is a sad reflection not only on the NYT but almost all of the news industry which follows the same milquetoast model. It is not good enough to echo a right wing talking point and a left wing talking point and declare that the truth must inevitably lie in the middle. That is the kind of laziness and cowardice that allowed falsehoods like the Bush administration's Iraq WMD claims to go unchallenged. It is not journalism.<br /><br /><a href="http://t.co/iB38FDHB">http://t.co/iB38FDHB</a>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-21766290817284755382011-12-09T01:17:00.000-08:002011-12-09T01:18:32.958-08:00Facism in America<div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2011/12/emergency-manager-near-for-inkster-with.html">http://www.eclectablog.com/2011/12/emergency-manager-near-for-inkster-with.html</a><br /><br />So, according to the Republican party, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in order to "bring them freedom and democracy." So why is that here in the US , that same party is arguing that democracy must be removed in order to save working class and black Americans from themselves. In Michigan, Republican governor Rick Snyder has instituted an "emergency manager" law that allows him to replace all local elected officials with "emergency managers" who rule their cities as unchecked tyrants.<br /><br />Detroit would be the 7th city to have its elected government replaced by a state-appointed dictator. And with it, over 50% of African Americans in Michigan would be stripped right to an elected local government. The fight for democracy is on - it's just closer to home than some of us expected.<br /></div>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-28734912374432351222011-12-04T21:12:00.000-08:002011-12-09T01:19:50.859-08:00The Wealthy are "Job Creators"? Please.<h6 style="font-weight: normal;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"></h6><h6 style="font-weight: normal;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"><span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/">http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/</a></span></h6><span style="font-size:100%;"><span>To follow up on yesterday's "John Boehner says tax cuts for the middle class are chicken shit" post, here is GOP supercommittee member Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) admitting that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy didn't create jobs. Even as Senate Republicans filibustered a plan to extend the wildly popular (even among Republicans!) payroll tax cut this week, claiming that it "hasn't created jobs," they are doubling down on their narrative that the wealthy can't be taxed because it will "kill jobs."<br /><br />When Rep. Upton was asked on Bloomberg News why more jobs were created in the higher tax Clinton years than the lower tax Bush years, he couldn't answer. Indeed, the years of greatest job growth in the US since 1950 have all had top marginal tax rates (i.e. taxes on all income made beyond the first $250,000) of 70 percent or higher. The idea that lower taxes on the wealthy means higher job growth is intellectually bankrupt, plain and simple.</span></span>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-10186559602778390672011-12-01T21:48:00.000-08:002011-12-01T21:50:13.518-08:00Why Do Young Voters Love Ron Paul?<a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/28/why_young_voters_love_ron_paul/singleton/">http://www.salon.com/2011/11/28/why_young_voters_love_ron_paul/singleton/</a><br /><br />Why do young conservatives love Ron Paul? It's not. as many conservative intellectuals dismissively purport, because he supports Marijuana legalization or because college kids "naively" cling to his brand of conservatism. It's because they agree with Rep. Paul that our imperialist foreign policy is making America less safe.<br /><br />It's a real shame that Paul's popular foreign policy positions "are either ignored or mocked by a political and media culture that is ideologically invested in marginalizing them."Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-41957921952884211322011-12-01T09:47:00.000-08:002011-12-01T09:49:19.654-08:00Mitt Romney - Change We Can Believe In?<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bd8KQDMZ21w" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe><br /><br />For your viewing pleasure, here's a slightly younger Mitt Romney doing retail campaigning and boasting about not being a "career politician." Romney's "outsider" label is still something he's trying to use to sell his candidacy. What's the problem with this narrative? This clip is from 1994.Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-6575456260349322192011-11-30T16:08:00.000-08:002011-11-30T16:11:30.921-08:00Whose Banks? Our Banks.<span style="font-size:100%;">http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/11/yes-the-us-government-ought-to-own-the-banks-now.html<br /><br />"When you don't take equity...you aren't acting as a good agent for your principals, the taxpayers."<br /><br />By all rights, the American people should own the major banks right now. We were lenders of last resort, and the government's decision not to secure equity for US taxpayers was an abject failure to represent our financial interests.<br /><br />We were compelled by the crisis to act as a lender of last resort. But by all rights should have been able to take over the banks, clean house, restructure, and ensure the banks didn't make a profit off of their own avarice and incompetence. Instead, the government participated in the worst kind of crony capitalism by rescuing the banks and then letting their executives profit from tanking the economy<br /></span>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-85049817366344575702011-11-30T15:56:00.000-08:002011-11-30T16:13:53.366-08:00The Battle we Won (?) for Women<h2><span style="font-size:85%;"><a id="titleHref" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/29/1040891/-White-House-says-Obama-considering-rolling-back-mandatory-insurance-coverage-of-contraception">"White House says Obama considering rolling back mandatory insurance coverage of contraception"</a></span></h2><h6 style="font-weight: normal;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Well, that's just awesome. So we're going to surrender a battle we've already won? Ladies and gents, the Democratic party.</span><br /><br /></span><br /></span></span></h6>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-80833667829837871812011-11-29T23:12:00.000-08:002011-11-30T00:14:50.682-08:00Gingrich - the GOP Savior?<h6 style="font-weight: normal;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}">Many on the right and the left agree that Newt Gingrich has too much personal and political baggage to be the Republican nominee. The difference? The Left points to Gingrich's sexism, hypocrisy, and avarice. The Right is upset that he supported "compassion" for immigrants and that he has sat next to Nancy Pelosi in the past.<br /><br /> From the party of "family values" and self-proclaimed moral superiority, it is amazing that serial adulterer and blatant moral hypocrite Newt Gingrich leads in the polls.</span></span></h6><h6 style="font-weight: normal;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"><br /></h6><h6 style="font-weight: normal;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/two_definitions_of_newt_gingrichs_baggage/singleton/"><span style="font-size:180%;">http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/two_definitions_of_newt_gingrichs_baggage/singleton/</span></a><span style="font-size:180%;"><span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}"><br /><br /><br /></span></span></h6>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-15507500187628226392011-11-28T21:23:00.000-08:002011-11-28T21:24:52.624-08:00The Fed's Secret Loans - Exposed<h6 style="font-weight: normal;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}">After more than two years of fighting to keep the specifics of the biggest bailout in US history under wraps, the details of the Feds secret loans to the big banks have finally come to light. In the words of the Bloomberg report,<br /><br />"A fresh narrative of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 emerges from 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions. While Fed officials say that almost all of the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger. "<br /><br />http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html<br /></span></span></h6>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-25768612060709664732011-11-09T14:06:00.000-08:002011-11-09T14:11:08.583-08:00Hermain Cain's Apologists Seek to Discredit Women<h6 style="font-weight: normal;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}">Apologists for Herman Cain are not only dismissing the claims of the women who have come forward alleging sexual harassment and assault, but dismissing the idea of sexual harassment altogether. Herman Cain's defenders are not claiming that they don't know what happened (i.e. "he said, she said"). They are instead claiming they know exactly what happened: nothing.<br /><br />Their rationale? Women are "humorless," "irrational," "hysterical," "money-grubbing," "attention-seeking tramps." As Dahlia Lithwick notes in her great new article <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/11/herman_cain_s_conservative_defenders_are_going_totally_overboard.html">Herman Cain’s Conservative Defenders Are Going Totally Overboard</a>, </span><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/11/herman_cain_s_conservative_defenders_are_going_totally_overboard.html"><strong style="font-weight: normal;"></strong></a><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/11/herman_cain_s_conservative_defenders_are_going_totally_overboard.html"><strong></strong></a><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/11/herman_cain_s_conservative_defenders_are_going_totally_overboard.html"><strong style="font-weight: normal;"></strong></a><strong style="font-weight: normal;"></strong><span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}">this is not just an effort to silence Cain's accusers. It is an effort to silence and discredit victims of sexual harassment and assault everywhere. </span></span></h6>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-29583508766143856962011-03-12T18:42:00.000-08:002011-03-12T18:45:45.058-08:00Shock and Awe Comes to America<p>Shock doctrine 101:<br /></p><p>Step 1: Put the economy into a "crisis" or "state of emergency" (George W. Bush, Rick Snyder, Scott Walker, etc.). It doesn't have to be a real crisis, you just have to claim there is one.</p><p>Step 2: Claim unprecedented executive powers "confront" the crisis YOU created/fabricated.</p><p>Step 3: Use those powers to privatize anything you can get your hands on. Massively deregulate corporations and cut their taxes. Bust unions and attack the public sector. This sets up the perfect conditions for another crisis.</p><p>Step 4: Repeat as needed until pesky middle class removed.</p><p>The "shock and awe" used to bring the free market to Afghanistan and Iraq has come to the USA. This is disaster capitalism at its worst. This is a war on people who have to work for a living, and it's about time we fought back.</p>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-7863304837113821912011-02-16T00:53:00.000-08:002011-02-16T00:55:49.623-08:00The War on WomenRepublicans want to simultaneously end all federal funding of contraception providers and criminalize abortion. Can't they just come out and say that they think bundles of cells are worth more than living, breathing women already? It's a war on women, nothing more, and nothing less.<br /><br />For more information, see <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/womens-health-advocates-unfazed-by-pences-war-on-planned-parenthood.php">this story from TPMDC</a> discussing the pro-choice fight against the Republican efforts. Also check <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/02/respect-our-lives.html">this great post</a> at Shakesville shellacking Republicans for their hypocrisy on the sanctity of human life.Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-46191113407067073382010-09-27T00:01:00.000-07:002010-09-27T00:05:05.276-07:00Weekend Stories!I thought I'd share a couple of stories that caught my eye this weekend.<br /><br />1. <a href="http://lat.ms/alfJIW">http://lat.ms/alfJIW </a>In this story, the LA Times reports on a US Army return to massive combat training in lieu of counterinsurgency. To quote from the piece:<br /><br />"Writing recently in Foreign Affairs magazine, Defense Secretary <a class="taxInlineTagLink" id="PEPLT007333" title="Robert Gates" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/defense/armed-forces/robert-gates-PEPLT007333.topic">Robert M. Gates</a> said, "The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan or Iraq anytime soon — that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire." Instead, U.S. forces will probably be called on to help other countries' armies defend themselves, particularly against terrorist attacks but also against conventional armies"<br /><br />Seems to me to be a pretty big snub of the Bush-era nation building strategy evident in their post-invasion operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.<br /><br />2. <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/25/local/la-me-gays-military-20100925">http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/25/local/la-me-gays-military-20100925 </a>. This article discusses a district court's recent overturning of the discharge of Maj. Margaret Whit under DADT. Interestingly, the case was remanded to the District Court by the 9th District Court of Appeals after they said that the judge had to look at whether Whit individually endangered her unit and the army's cohesion and security interests. Judge Leighton found she did not. Alarmingly, the Obama administration argues that the ruling overturning DADT should only apply to Maj. Whit. This seems backwards from a history legal jurisprudence perspective (e.g. <i>Brown vs. Board of Education</i>)Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-68224360236210667582010-09-24T14:27:00.000-07:002010-09-24T14:31:28.171-07:00Obama Administration Attacks Court Ruling Striking Down DADTWhat. The. Hell. Isn't this the man claiming to be "fierce advocate" of gay rights?!<br /><a href="http://www.openleft.com/diary/20284/fierce-advocate-stirkes-again-once-again-gay-rights-targeted-not-defended"><br />http://www.openleft.com/diary/20284/fierce-advocate-stirkes-again-once-again-gay-rights-targeted-not-defended</a><br /><br />To quote the Open Left piece:<br /><br />"the Log Cabin Republicans brought suit on behalf of their members in the military. So now the Obama DOJ is arguing that they're the only ones who could possibly be affected. Meaning, by analogy, that Brown v. Board of Education should only have desegregated those children who were plaintiffs in the suits combined under Brown."<br /><br />If the Obama DOJ had its way, the USA would still have segregated schools.Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-53432544819068850102010-09-09T11:33:00.000-07:002010-09-09T11:41:13.896-07:00State Secrets Upheld in Jeppesen Ruling, Will be Appealed to SCOTUSYesterday, the ACLU's team that was challenging a post-9/11 US program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons, suffered a major legal setback. Jeppesen, a Boeing subsidiary was contracted out by the CIA to conduct said flights. The ruling, which was handed down by the 9th district Court of Appeals, was divided 6-5 and narrowly upheld the state secrets doctrine used by the Bush Administration and now defended by the Obama DOJ. The case will undoubtedly be appealed to the SCOTUS, which in all likelihood will uphold the appeals' court's ruling.<br /><br />In light of the recent developments Jeppesen case, I thought I'd share a couple of relevant links. In this first video from a panel hosted by the American Constitution Scoiety (ACS), Ben Wizner, the ACLU's attorney in the Jeppesen case, discusses state secrets and national security. This is back from 2008, but the points Wizner makes are the same as the ACLU made in Jeppesen<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJpcq6VO7N4<br /><br />Here are two other great clips of Wizner on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show:<br /><br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#29129616 - This one starts a little silly with a reenactment of a 9th circuit ruling on Jeppesen from 2009, but quickly gets serious as Wizner joins Maddow to discuss state secrets, national security and the details of the Jeppesen case. This clip is the only one I could find where Wizner specifically discusses Jeppesen.<br /><br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#31378360 - This clip has Wizner discussing the Bush Administration's state secrets doctrine. Wizner additionally provides proof of the use of State Secrets for political purposes.<br /><br />Ben Wizner also came and spoke at Oxy in October 2009 about Jeppesen, the history of the state secrets doctrine, and ACLU involvement with other torture cases. I took extensive notes on the lecture/Q&A and posted them on my blog here: http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/search/label/Ben%20WiznerIsaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-89664646095440976272010-08-13T14:26:00.000-07:002010-08-13T14:30:11.014-07:00Sharron Angle, PinochetistaI'm back from Chile, and decided to resume blogging. Thanks to my many loyal readers, AKA the people that stumble across this blog by mistake. I appreciate you anyways =).<br /><br />Check THIS gem out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/sharron-angle-on-privatiz_n_681726.html<br /><br />Sharron Angle, the GOP candidate for Senator in Nevada and a self-identified tea-partier is also a PINOCHETISTA. This woman believes that victims of rape or incest should turn "lemons into lemonade" instead of getting an abortion (which she would like to make illegal). She wants "2nd amendment remedies" for Harry Reid ...should she lose (AKA shoot him). She also thinks that unemployment benefits are spoiling Americans. This woman is a nut job, and THE Republican national party backed candidate for US Senate from Nevada. <br /><br />Harry Reid must be jumping for joy.Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-17225202451484285062009-12-11T22:41:00.000-08:002009-12-11T22:52:44.529-08:00My Presentation to the Torture Class<div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Warning: High Emotional Content.
<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CIsaac%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CIsaac%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"></o:smarttagtype></span><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">There were many subjects I considered discussing for my presentation. I considered showing media clips, or discussing the arc of my blog (thanks to those of you that followed by the way). Ultimately what I decided to discuss however is disability. If you’ll allow me, I’d like to begin with a personal story and then tie it in to the course and the creation of the other.</span></p><div style="font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">This may seem like a strange topic considering that I personally am not disabled. Disability, however, has shaped my life. When I was five, my father was in a wheel chair for a year when he had a cancerous back tumor removed. The chemotherapy he had following the removal caused a rare condition to occur wherein the nerves in his legs no longer correctly transmit motor information, severely limiting their use to this day. When I was nine my mother’s auto-immune condition, Sjögren’s Syndrome (which is akin to Lupus or Coeliac disease), drastically worsened. To this day she is constantly nauseous, suffers from daily migraines, is severely limited physically and is only active for 8 hours a day. Today, as they have been for most of my childhood, my parents are severely physically disabled. In other words, I grew up in a disabled household.</span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">My parents’ disabilities affected me directly in many ways. More important in defining who I am today though is how their disabilities affected them. Unlike my younger brother, I still have strong memories of when my parents were able-bodied. My mother in particular was an incredibly dedicated worker, administrating family planning clinics for <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Contra</st1:placename> <st1:placename st="on">Costa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>, pulling long hours and still finding time to spend with my brother and me. Even when a drunk driver ran her down while she was on a bike, crushing one of her spinal disks, she persevered. When her Sjögren’s Syndrome flared up, everything changed. My mother’s seemingly unstoppable lifelong effort to succeed in the workplace and in the community was crushed within the course of a year. Her work was not all that changed. My mother to this day cannot do lengthy social engagements or even meet with friends outside our house without great physical cost. As a result of this, most of her long-term friendships buckled and collapsed, and many in her family alienated. My mother’s Sjögren’s Syndrome will be with her as long as she lives, and its many burdens along with it.</span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Despite the amount of suffering my mother endures and the loss of her career, there is an additional layer of unnecessary suffering that greatly compounds her hardships. American society has, to put it mildly, a disturbing view of physical disability. For those who we acknowledge as “legitimately” disabled we have developed limited accommodations but by and large have not committed ourselves to bringing about true equal opportunity. One look at Occidental’s campus will tell you that the school simply wasn’t designed and largely hasn’t been updated to accommodate the basic needs of the physically disabled. Sure there are methods whereby the wheelchair-bound and those with reduced mobility can get into Johnson and Fowler, but can you imagine trying to get into Weingart? Or trying to get food at the Marketplace? Or live for that matter in any of the dorms? Despite its debatable “bet intentions”, Oxy operates out a standard playbook for American social thought: human beings when “normal” are physically “well”, and that additional “accommodations” are desirable but not urgent. I’ll return to this standard of normalcy and wellness in a minute.</span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">To go back to the subject of my mother, she is not one of those I described above. Though her disability is crippling and prevents her from engaging in most activities the “well” (myself included) enjoy, it is not immediately visible to the eye like a wheelchair or a limp would be. Without a physical reminder of her disability, the social construction of “wellness as normalcy” comes to the surface in an ugly fashion. Again and again I see my mother’s friends, peers, acquaintances and even her own family question whether she was “really sick”.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Some say it outright, calling her a “hypochondriac”, and inventing/perpetuating her own maladies. Others are, or grow to be more subtle, asking over and over again why my mother wasn’t investing “enough” time in their relationship, or why she couldn’t pick up their kids from school, or why she couldn’t just “overcome” and “be stronger than her sickness” for just one event that they wanted her to do. No matter how many times my mother explains her condition, and indeed demonstrates how limiting it is in her daily life, few truly believe her. With no job and very few friends and family that acknowledge the nature of her life, my mother has no choice but just to live.</span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> This denial of illness and elevation of ability-based normalcy is from my life experience rooted in fear. As my mother’s friends and family look her in the eye and tell her she can overcome her illness if she sets her mind to it they are afraid. Afraid that when they look at her, what looks back is their own mortality. Afraid that the strength they see within her would not be in them were they as ill as she. Western culture is profoundly afraid of death and even more so, I’d argue, loss of our faculties. A post-enlightenment worldview has given the West an obsession with rational observation and our supposed ability to control our own lives. What is more American than the idea that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps? If someone is not satisfied with their life, shouldn’t they just try harder? If you’ve gotten to where you are in life through hard work, isn’t it insulting when someone says that they are stuck by their circumstances? </span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> This brings me back to our coursework and the discourse of torture. In the very beginning of the course, Elaine Scarry made the claim that the pain of others is fundamentally inaccessible. As we progressed through the course, we saw this view reflected again and again in Western metaphysics. Only in some of our most recently examined theorists, like Levinas and Derrida have we seen an attempt to break this tradition and de-alienate the suffering of the other. These more recent challenges to the traditional framework are just that however: challenges to an accepted</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">reality. This standard conception of identity and the human experience as internal and isolated still governs our society today. </span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;"> For the tortured and the disabled alike, there is a narrative of conflict between rational self-control and pain. The tortured, when the act is committed, are as we discussed “reduced to animals” and “rendered sub-human” by their loss of self (as Scarry puts it) and inability to overcome their pain through rational thought. When I read this at the beginning of the semester, I wondered how this fundamentally differs from the pain of the unwell or disabled.
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> While for one the pain is externally inflicted and the other the pain is internal, there is a parallel inherent in the two groups of people in the Western tradition. Neither group has control over their pain, nor can exert the rational faculty that defines humanity in Western metaphysics to stop it. For these two groups that should elicit the most sympathy from us, sympathy is impossible (Scarry). Ingrained in our thinking is the fundamental internalization of the pain of the “other” and their own obligation as humans to overcome their adversity through rationality and re-establishment of a “well” self. As Du Bois put it, the torturee is just “a body”. Asad says that torture in the ascetic tradition releases the soul from the body. Like the tortured, the disabled are reduced to the limitations of their body and hence have a damaged “self” from their inability to exert rational control.</span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> In perhaps an even more frightening manner, this Western metaphysical tradition compounds with American exceptionalism, the American dream, and the neo-liberal tradition. Ingrained in this tradition, as I mentioned earlier is the expectation that everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be a productive member of society. External barriers in this tradition are non-existent: the expectation is that whether you succeed or not depends on whether you have the willpower and personal drive to achieve what is offered to everyone equally. The tortured and the disabled are similarly demoted in the eyes of society by their inability to fulfill their Hobbesian social contract. The torture have allegedly already exited said contract for their alleged crimes, and the disabled face an inherent barrier that prevents them from contributing as “productive” members of human society. By “refusing” to use their rational control to fulfill their contract with society, both groups have failed to live up to the supposedly barrier-less American dream.</span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: times new roman;font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> I know that significantly more biopolitical analysis is needed here, and that this is only an initial exploration, but it was important to me to share with you how this class has made me reflect on my own life and the lives around me. Thank you.</span></p> Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-90590695799823774952009-12-10T23:44:00.000-08:002009-12-11T16:03:27.345-08:00David Adler: The Q + AAfter David Adler's Dec. 3rd lecture to Oxy's "American Presidency", <a href="http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/2009/12/david-adler-constitutional-presidency.html">which I blogged about last week</a>, he had a Q+A session. I also got the chance to ask him several questions that focused more directly on torture and the constitution.<br /><br />Here are some of the questions I asked and the responses I received from Prof. Adler. Because I did not have a recording device, I will be paraphrasing Prof. Adler's responses:<br /><br />Q: In the last several months, the Obama administration has seen the resignation of several high profile officials who were involved with Guantanamo and Torture policy. The list includes such high profile individuals as Greg Craig (White House Counsel), Phil Carter (Detainee affairs policy appointee), and David Ogden (Deputy Attorney General). Do you think that this massive turnover in torture policymakers is indicative of a disagreement on torture in the Obama administration?<br /><br />A: Adler does believe there is significant disagreement w/in the Obama admin. He believes that there is a significant push-pull between the Obama administration's desire to follow his campaign promises and Constitutional principles and political pressure from the military and party power brokers not to tackle the issue of torture. He believes Obama will eventually close Guantanamo Bay.<br /><br />Q: Congress recently wrote legislation allowing the Defense Secretary to withhold photos of US-committed torture during the Bush years. The Supreme Court used this legislation as the basis to advise the 2nd District Court of Appealsto reconsider siding with the ACLU's FOIA suit. Is it unusual for the Supreme Court to rely on congressional legislation to make its legal decisions? Also, what effect does this have on the breadth and power of FOIA.<br /><br />A: Adler replied that no, it's not unusual for the Court to use congressional legislation rather than just the Constitution and legal precedent. He also asserted that FOIA lost a massive amount of clout under the Bush administration, and he's hopeful that it will return to its previous prominence with the Obama administration's promises for open government.<br /><br />Q: Why can Obama increase troop levels? Isn't that congress' role?<br /><br />A: Adler agreed with me that this should be congress' call to make. Because of congress' ceding of war powers to the Presidency and the executive's role as the sole organ of foreign policy has resulted in the movement of war powers from the legislature to the executive.<br /><br />Q: As a potential US Senate candidate and a Constitutional scholar, I have to ask you abut the institution of the Senate itself. Considering the filibuster fiasco and other undemocratic elements (e.g. unequal representation of states) of the Senate, do you think fundamental changes nead to be made to the institution?<br /><br />A: Adler believes that while the filibuster may have been useful during the civil rights era, it no longer serves a valid purpose. He would advocate the filibusters' elimination if elected. He doesn't believe that the Senate needs to be eradicated in the name of democracy.<br /><br /><br />And 3 questions from the class:<br /><br />Q: If not Iraq, what will it take to get the American public to embrace a Constitutional culture?<br /><br />A: Adler responded that he didn't know, but re-emphasized education.<br /><br />Q: Is Obama surging in Afghanistan due to political pressure.<br /><br />A: Adler has immense respect for Obama's character and thinks he makes extremely deliberative decisions that are not motivated by concerns for his legacy. Though he doesn't agree with the Afghanistan surge, he thinks that Obama is doing what he perceives to be the best and most rational course of action within a very poor set of circumstances.<br /><br />Q: If you run for Senate, will you devote precious campaign time and resources to making a return to constitutional governance a major campaign cornerstone?<br /><br />A: Adler reasserted that it will be a top priority for him both on the campaign trail and off.<br /><br /><br />Thanks a million to Professor Adler for answering so many of my questions and giving his time to our class! I wish him the best of luck, and know he will make an excellent Senator from the great state of Idaho.Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-90090196527403366932009-12-04T23:06:00.001-08:002009-12-10T23:43:34.923-08:00David Adler: The Constitutional Presidency, Obama and TortureOn Thursday December 3rd, Oxy's American Presidency class was visited by decorated constitutional scholar <a href="http://www.isu.edu/polsci/Faculty%20sites/adler.htm">David Adler</a>. David Adler is an expert on the American presidency and constitutional law and is a professor at Idaho State University. He is also actively considering running against Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) in 2014. Imagine that, someone in congress who is an expert on the constitution.<br /><br />A selection of some of the points he made in his talk about presidential power:<br /><ul><li>Power abhors a vacuum. Congress relinquishes its powers and the president usurps them . The courts have failed to rein in the unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. In other words, congress has willingly abdicated responsibility to its constitutional role. This runs directly contrary to the Supreme Court's 1819 ruling in <span style="font-style: italic;">McCulloch v. Maryland</span> which mandated that congress alone fulfill its constitutional rule.</li></ul><ul><li>Since the Korean War, all presidents have claimed unilateral power to go to war. The only exceptions have been Eisenhower and (though with some debate) Obama. To return to a constitutional presidency, we would have to return to a pre-Johnson style of presidential role.</li></ul><ul><li>The standard remedies to the excesses of presidential power are at best infeasible. Obama or any other president is unlikely to actually relinquish their own power. If they were to do so, they would be labled as "feminine" and "weak. The Supreme Court is also unlikely to reestablish a constitutional presidency, as indicated by its frequent decisions to hold up presidential power in foreign policy (e.g. <i>United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.)<span style="font-weight: bold;">. </span></i><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Congress, the institutional body that would seem to be the most interested in reaquiring their own constitutional power, is also unlikely to be the agent that effects this change. Primarily obsessed with their own reelection prospects, many congressmen view taking on the president on matters of foreign policy to be political suicide. </li></ul><ul><li>The standard arguments about why the president should be the "sole organ" of foreign policy are bunk. He/she doesn't necessarily have more foreign policy knowledge than members of congress. The main reason the president might have a higher level of knowledge of current foreign policy information is because congress has structured the flow of information such that it flows through the executive before going to congress (if ever). Congress in the early days of the nation passed a law requiring that the executive branch had to share <span style="font-weight: bold;">all </span>of its knowledge with congress. This was passed with the support of Madison, Washington, and even Hamilton, perhaps the biggest founding supporter of executive power. In short, congress' lack of foreign policy clout is because it has artificially and unconstitutionally transfered that responsibility to the presidency.<br /></li></ul><ul><li>The solution to all this? Adler identifies the 3 C's: Constitutional culture, Constitutional consciousness, and Constitutional conscience. Adler believes that ultimately Americans must be educated from the ground up and reminded what a society without rule of constitutional law looks like. Once we've been educated enough to have a culture that prioritizes constitutional values, Adler argues we will have the consciousness to monitor government actions for excessive exercises of power and have the conscience to speak out against said abuses.<br /></li></ul>I had the opportunity after the lecture to ask Prof. Adler several questions about presidential power and torture 1-on-1. Stay tuned for a summary of that session as well as my own analysis and reflection!Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-25513053249520407232009-11-30T16:16:00.000-08:002009-11-30T16:55:28.877-08:00Supreme Court Rejects Appeals Court Ruling Ordering Release of Torture PhotosThere is another frustrating setback in the torture photos saga that started on May 13th when the Obama administration reversed its decision to release a substantial number of new Abu Ghraib photos to the public. As<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/politics/01scotus.html"> reported today by the New York Times</a>, the Supreme Court nullified the 2008 ruling by the Manhattan Second Circuit Court of Appeals that ordered the photos be released to the public. The Supreme Court has today kicked the ruling back to the Appeals Court, asking, as the Times put it, that it "give 'further consideration' to the issue in light of a Congressional action authorizing the Defense Department to keep the pictures from the public."<br /><br />As a constitutional law dork, I have to ask why the Supreme Court would pay any heed to Congressional legislation in its rulings. Supreme Court cases deal by definition with matters of strictly constitutional law. If our system of checks and balances is to be believed, as articulated in <span style="font-style: italic;">Marbury v. Madison</span>, it is the within the purview of the Court to curb Congressional action, <span style="font-weight: bold;">not </span>vice versa. The Court since its inception was meant to stand as an antimajoritarian counterweight to the executive and legislative branches. It is the Supreme Court's most basic duty in this case to authoritatively decide whether or not it is constitutional to withhold the torture photos as so-called "state secrets". If the Court is unwilling to fulfill its basic constitutional obligation to decide cases on the basis of constitutional law alone in this case, it should have not granted cert. to the case. Rather than subvert their own constitutional role, the Supreme Court could have simply let the Appeals Court ruling stand.<br /><br />Sadly, the constitution sadly doesn't seem to be the center of this debate. My fingers are crossed that the hard work of the ACLU and their allies will be sufficient enough to convince the Appeals Court once again that the constitution still matters. Maybe then will we get the photos, and with them another step towards truth, justice, and accountability.Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-22054381164496736502009-11-26T22:33:00.000-08:002009-11-30T16:02:26.171-08:00ACLU FOIA Request Reveals Even More Bush Administration Involvement in TortureIn a press release issued today, the ACLU announced that it has obtained an index of important new CIA documents through a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">FOIA</span> request. This documents in this index mostly relate to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CIA's</span> 2005 destruction of videotapes that showed vicious torture at CIA <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">black sites</span>. The reason we only have an index rather than the actual documents themselves is, you guessed it, national security. One more example of so-called "state secrets" used as an excuse to cover the administration's butt.<br /><br />To quote <a href="http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=108595">the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">ACLU's</span> press release</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>The chronology outlined in this new index supplies further evidence that the CIA destroyed the videotapes in order to prevent the public from learning the full scope of the CIA’s torture program, and further evidence that the Bush White House was on notice that the CIA intended to destroy the tapes" said <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Jameel</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Jaffer</span>, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "We continue to believe that the CIA’s destruction of the tapes constituted contempt of court, and we intend to press that case over the next few weeks<br /><br /> Listed in the index released last week are a November 8, 2005 cable from a CIA field office to CIA headquarters requesting permission to destroy the 92 tapes and a November 9, 2005 cable confirming their destruction. The precise date of destruction confirms that the tapes were destroyed immediately after the Washington Post reported the existence of the CIA black sites and the New York Times reported that the CIA Inspector General had questioned the legality of the agency’s torture program.<br /><br /> The index also lists the earliest known record of White House participation in discussions about destroying the tapes – an e-mail dated February 22, 2003 revealing that CIA officials met with Bush administration officials to discuss how the agency should respond to a letter from Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) advising the agency not to destroy the tapes. While it was known previously that the White House participated in discussions about the disposition of the tapes, this is the earliest record to date of any such discussions.</blockquote><br /> I suppose at this point that new knowledge about the complicity and guilt of the Bush administration in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CIA's</span> torture program is not surprising. As much as George Tenet and the Bush Administration attempted to pass the buck to one another, they are both guilty for the human rights atrocities committed at CIA black sites.<br /><br /> Indeed the transparency of the "state secrets" lie is even more apparent now. As Ben <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Wizner</span> pointed out in his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Oxy</span> Q+A session, Secrecy and abuse are cyclical: State secrecy sets the stage for torture. Torture creates the need for state secrecy, etc. etc. Here the political nature of the "state secrets" claim is more transparent than ever: the tapes were destroyed in response to the Washington Post's discovery of them and the CIA Inspector <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">General's</span> questioning of the program's legality. Rather than serve a national security interest, the "state secrets" defense being used now to withhold the documents regarding the videotapes is blatantly political. The political fallout of documents proving that the Bush <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Administration's</span> explicitly authorized the destruction of the tapes in response to the very real possibility that they could be held accountable for them would be immense. The CIA knows it, Obama knows it, and congress knows it.<br /><br />With evidence as damning as this, it's not hard to see why Republican congressmen have tried so hard to block torture accountability. The extremely limited evidence is damning <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">enough</span> without the no-doubt gruesome details of the documents themselves.Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-89658269866666782442009-11-18T21:54:00.000-08:002009-11-19T01:04:53.992-08:00Lawrence O'Donnell and the Denial of ImpactLast night, MSNBC contributor and political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell came and spoke to our torture class. here at Oxy Most of the material he covered was basic media studies knowledge: the media has a significant liberal bias, the 24-hour news cycle, investigative journalism is in decline and traditional news media sources are dying off. There were a couple interesting points. First, that Dick Cheney was trying to receive some kind of national support for torture by making it a partisan issue. In part he succeeded, as evidenced by the many Republican torture apologists in congress. Second, he did acknowledge that giving a platform to Cheney and other torture apologists for the sake of back-and-forth talk show confrontation does legitimize their position. This knee-jerk impulse to find two sides to every issue does create a serious moral quandary for the media by lending legitimacy to defenders of the most heinous crimes against humanity.<br /><br />Though Mr. O'Donnell did a fantastic job of avoiding saying anything substantive or newsworthy, I did take umbrage at his assertion that media contributors like him don't make a significant impact in public perception of issues. While it is true that viewership for news shows has declined dramatically, televised media as a whole still plays an important role in establishing the national rhetoric surrounding political issues. Mr. O'Donnell complained both about the decline of investigative journalism and the rise of sensationalist media outlets, I wish he'd discussed the effect of their intersection. As has been widely studied in the discipline of media analysis, the decrease in editorial filtering and independent investigative journalism has created a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29">media echo chamber</a> of sorts. In this echo chamber, news stories and particularly soundbite-worthy statements ricochet around the various mass media outlets with little restraint. Mr. O'Donnell argues that his presence on a cable news outlet like MSNBC is fundamentally inconsequential because the viewers watching shows on cable networks "already have their minds made up". Be that as it may, outlets like MSNBC and FOX allow for the introduction of stories and frames into the newscycle that would not otherwise appear in mainstream media.<br /><br />As exciting as it was to have Mr. O'Donnell join us here at Oxy, I was disappointed that he believed so strongly in the futility of his occupation. I sincerely hope that Mr. O'Donnell uses his powerful position to speak truth to power and establish progressive media narratives. Only in doing so can we counter the pervasive conservative torture apologism narrative that rears its ugly head in nearly every discussion of torture in the media.Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-56687782472092168052009-11-13T22:44:00.000-08:002009-11-30T16:03:48.075-08:00Return to the Rule of Law?Breaking News: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 other men accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks will finally be put on trial in NYC. Unfortunately, it was also announced that 5 other men will face military commissions. Regardless, though this is specifically being politically framed as bringing the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, it is a massive step in favor of law and order. President Obama is finally fulfilling President Bush's promise to bring the accused 9/11 conspirators to justice. This is a huge political risk for President Obama. If successful, the trials will make him a man of justice, and if plagued by complications from US-committed torture could be a major political albatross.<br /><br />The GOP of course, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5635009.shtml">is outraged</a>. Surprise, surprise. Some pretty crazy things are being said by individuals such as Sen. Jeff Sessions and Sen. John McCain, but the crown jewel of crazy goes to former NYC Rudy Giuliani, who said on Fox that "We think they're criminals! These are soldiers in a war against us; and the rules of war should apply." Apparently the new chapter in Republican revisionist history is that we have treated these men as "prisoners of war" and should continue to do so. If they're POWs, the Geneva Conventions apply. Are you and the Republican party willing to accept that Mr. Giuliani? The hypocrisy of these men is astounding, as they flood the media with the message that these accused terrorists are POWs and hence can't be tried in civilian court. A reminder to Mr. Giuliani, Sens. McCain and Sessions and their ilk: it was you who supported the declassification of these men as POWs and the creation of the "Geneva Convention-immune" classification of "enemy combatant". You cannot call them POWs again out of convenience after 8 years of illegal detention, torture and Geneva Convention violations. That is revisionist history and blatantly deceptive.<br /><br />Additionally, the Republicans seem to be arguing that the US courts are incapable of dealing with terrorism cases. As Rachel Maddow <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33922701">pointed out tonight</a>, this is an absurd proposition. We've imprisoned Charles Manson, the "blind sheik", the "unabomber", the "shoe bomber" and even another 9/11 conspirator through the federal courts. This, as Maddow points out, is sheer cowardice.<br /><br />I would go further than Maddow does though and outline the political implications of these proceedings for Republicans. I believe that the Republicans do have legitimate reasons to be afraid, though not for the safety of the American people. Rather, the Republicans are all too aware that these trials for the first time will allow the Guantanomo detainees to testify in a real American court about the torture they were subjected to at the hands of the US. No longer will the culpability of the Bush White House's torture program be shielded by a censor and thick glass, as Wizner described it as being in the Gitmo military tribunals. If the details of detainees gruesome torture at the hands of US operatives becomes public, Republicans could be forced to answer for the Bush administration's actions. I'd be panicking if I were them too.<br /><br />For this blog, the timing of this decision couldn't be better. In my recent posts on Ben Wizner's talks, I quoted him as saying that "[state] secrecy is the source of rot". If AG Holder is serious about these prosecutions, and the accused 9/11 conspirators are only the first of many to face constitutional justice, our long national nightmare of secret torture may finally come to an end. That end is still a long way off, but today marks a historic first step. Friday night is when the most contentious policies are always announced (nobody listens to the news Friday night. Except me.), but this story will hopefully dominate the news for a long time.<br /><br />Further Viewing:<br /><br />On the decision to put the 5 men on trial and Republican outrage:<br /><div><iframe src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33922701#33922701" frameborder="0" height="339" scrolling="no" width="425"></iframe><p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); margin-top: 5px; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div><br />On the challenges facing the court and a possible referendum on the Bush torture policy:<br /><div><iframe src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33922877#33922877" frameborder="0" height="339" scrolling="no" width="425"></iframe><p style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-size: 11px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); margin-top: 5px; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; text-decoration: none ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1914994781806168071.post-37858744317935786672009-11-08T01:49:00.000-08:002009-11-10T01:31:38.910-08:00Ben Wizner pt. 3: Q+A Session (Oct. 23)In the Oct. 23rd conversation our class on torture had with ACLU attorney Ben Wizner, we discussed in greater detail and specificity the legal issues regarding torture. We covered a large range of topics, but with an emphasis on state secrets and the classification of the so-called "enemy combatant". Here are some of the gems of knowledge Wizner shared with us:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">On State Secrets:<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>In relation to torture: "secrecy is the source of rot".<br /></li></ul><ul><li>Secrecy and abuse are cyclical: State secrecy sets the stage for torture. Torture creates the need for state secrecy. Etc. etc.</li></ul><ul><li>Though there are legitimate state secrets (e.g. military technology in wartime), secrecy must be balanced with the need for an open government of and for the people. State secrets have been abused since their very inception, as evidenced by the pentagon papers. The pentagon papers were held secret on the grounds of national security when ultimately it was revealed that they were kept secret because they were a political liability. Governments have an irresestible temptation to use state secrets for political ends, and this is where the courts must intervene.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">On FOIA:<br /></span><ul><li>Between 2000-2006, FOIA was the only oversight of the Presidency. The Republican controlled congress did not perform it's constitutional duty.<br /></li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">On the Gitmo Military Tribunals:<br /></span><ul><li>"Secret people, secret laws, secret proceedings". Enemy combatants, being tried under "state secrets protected" secret laws, and the few human rights representatives present could only watch through a soundproof screen. Indeed, they had a censor at the ready to bleep out anything a detainee could say regarding his treatment in Gitmo.</li></ul><ul><li>The tribunals, according to Wizner, were "not about keeping information from terrorists, but about keeping information from the American people.</li></ul><ul><li>The purpose of the courtroom was to prevent testimony about torture from leaving it. The detainees were allowed to talk about martyrdom and other purported evils of the US, and indeed even call for direct assaults on the nation. But when they talked about their treatment in Gitmo, they were censored. In other words, they were allowed to call for assaults on the US, but it was far more important that evidence of US torture be kept secret.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">On the So-Called "War on Terror"</span>:<br /><ul><li>Bush: the "War on Terror" is not a normal war. Enemy combatants are not normal enemies. There are no rules for enemy combatants beyond what we make up. Even individuals acquitted by the Bush-created tribunals remained enemy combatants.<br /></li></ul><ul><li>Where Bush argues no laws apply to enemy combatants, as they are a new class of enemy, Wizner argues that they have additional protections. They are both private citizens and enemy fighters. Both criminal laws and rules of combat (e.g. Geneva Conventions) apply.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Question and Answer:<br /></span><ul><li>Wizner opposes a truth commission. Such a commission assumes we all agree that torture occurred. As congressional Republicans exemplify, we do not.</li></ul><ul><li>The rule of law is diminished by the 24-hour news cycle. He-said she-said partisan standoffs always assume two sides to any issue. In other words, the mass media legitimizes fringe believers in the usefulness of torture.</li></ul><ul><li>Wizner hopes that congress will pass legislation defining, and hopefully limiting, the breadth of executive "state secrets".</li></ul><br />This is the final installment in the Wizner Talks! Here are the earlier installments: <a href="http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/2009/10/ben-wizner-pt-1-lecture-oct-22.html">Part 1</a> and <a href="http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/2009/10/ben-wizner-pt-2-qa-session-oct-22.html">Part 2</a> .Isaac Halehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01720978752380238968noreply@blogger.com0