After David Adler's Dec. 3rd lecture to Oxy's "American Presidency", which I blogged about last week, 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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
Q: Why can Obama increase troop levels? Isn't that congress' role?
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.
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?
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.
And 3 questions from the class:
Q: If not Iraq, what will it take to get the American public to embrace a Constitutional culture?
A: Adler responded that he didn't know, but re-emphasized education.
Q: Is Obama surging in Afghanistan due to political pressure.
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.
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?
A: Adler reasserted that it will be a top priority for him both on the campaign trail and off.
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.
Showing posts with label House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
David Adler: The Constitutional Presidency, Obama and Torture
On Thursday December 3rd, Oxy's American Presidency class was visited by decorated constitutional scholar David Adler. 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.
A selection of some of the points he made in his talk about presidential power:
A selection of some of the points he made in his talk about presidential power:
- 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 McCulloch v. Maryland which mandated that congress alone fulfill its constitutional rule.
- 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.
- 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. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.). 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.
- 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 all 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.
- 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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Supreme Court Rejects Appeals Court Ruling Ordering Release of Torture Photos
There 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 reported today by the New York Times, 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."
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 Marbury v. Madison, it is the within the purview of the Court to curb Congressional action, not 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.
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.
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 Marbury v. Madison, it is the within the purview of the Court to curb Congressional action, not 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.
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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Did The CIA Lie to Nancy Pelosi?
According to a report yesterday from The Hill, Nancy Pelosi's claim that she and other congressmen/women were mislead on multiple occasions by the CIA could be bolstered by an ongoing House Intelligence Committee investigation. The investigation was spurred by the new CIA Director Leon Panetta's admission that several CIA officials didn't notify congress about a program to assassinate al Qaeda leaders. Nancy Pelosi has been under constant assault from Republicans since she made the claim in May that: "We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used... They [the CIA] misled us all the time".
Now, House Intelligence subcommittee Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is saying that the Panetta admission is just one of five instances of a critical breakdown in communications between the CIA and congress. Said Schakowsy:
Conspiracy to deceive congress is criminal. I hope that serious investigation into the CIA and Dick Cheney comes of this, though I'm not holding my breath. Expect more from this fascinating story as the House Intelligence subcommittee's investigation continues. In the meantime, enjoy this lovely clip of "Fox and Friends" getting the story on Nancy Pelosi's May assertion really, really wrong:
Got to love the torture apologia coming out of the guest's mouth. "We were all scared after 9/11" is the worst excuse out there. And then he defends Bush's torture record by asserting that Bush won in a "relative landslide" in 2004 (Reminder: these were the election results. Not impressive for an incumbent.). I suppose any electoral victory could be called a landslide in comparison to the 2000 election, but that's just intellectually dishonest. Then again, it's "Fox & Friends"
Now, House Intelligence subcommittee Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is saying that the Panetta admission is just one of five instances of a critical breakdown in communications between the CIA and congress. Said Schakowsy:
There have been many instances where we’ve come to a committee hearing, after having read in the paper of something that should have been notified to us, where it’s followed up my mea culpas by the intelligence community... And examples where the committee actually has been lied to.Apparently, the instances of omission, misleading and outright lying to congress are not limited to torture techniques. Of further interest is that Dick Cheney apparently ordered the CIA not to notify congress about the al Queda assassination program and potentially other programs.
Conspiracy to deceive congress is criminal. I hope that serious investigation into the CIA and Dick Cheney comes of this, though I'm not holding my breath. Expect more from this fascinating story as the House Intelligence subcommittee's investigation continues. In the meantime, enjoy this lovely clip of "Fox and Friends" getting the story on Nancy Pelosi's May assertion really, really wrong:
Got to love the torture apologia coming out of the guest's mouth. "We were all scared after 9/11" is the worst excuse out there. And then he defends Bush's torture record by asserting that Bush won in a "relative landslide" in 2004 (Reminder: these were the election results. Not impressive for an incumbent.). I suppose any electoral victory could be called a landslide in comparison to the 2000 election, but that's just intellectually dishonest. Then again, it's "Fox & Friends"
Monday, October 26, 2009
Ben Wizner pt. 1: The Lecture (Oct. 22)
On October 22nd and 23rd, we here at Occidental College were lucky enough to have ACLU attorney Ben Wizner come speak. Ben Wizner joined the ACLU directly before the September 11th attacks, and has been working largely on cases regarding torture and Guantanamo bay since the beginning of the so-called "war on terror". I will be splitting up my summary and analysis of the two talks into three posts, one for his Oct. 22nd lecture, one for his Oct. 22nd Q+A session, and one for his Oct. 23rd conversation with the Torture class.
On the 22nd, I came to the lecture hall expecting minimal turnout. From my experience as an RA, I know that anything less than an all-out advertising blitz usually results in low turnout. Thankfully, this was not the case. The hall was packed, and I was glad to know all the questions for Mr. Wizner would not be my own.
The beginning of Mr. Wizner's lecture was spent alternating between reading John Yoo's infamous "you would like" torture memo and reading the Red Cross testimony of Abu Zubaydah. Wizner provided a striking contrast between all of the forms of torture Yoo authorized in the memo with the actual memories and suffering endured by Abu Zubaydah. Part of what was truly horrifying about hearing the two pieces together was realizing how sterile and deceptive Yoo's methodical descriptions of the techniques he authorized were in comparison to the deeds that were actually committed.
To quote John Yoo's 2002 memo, "You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects... As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure you are outside the predicate death requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death...". The fact that this extremely Orwellian authorization failed in any way to capture the horrors of Zubaydah's experience is testament to the true nature of the memos. The torture endured by Zubaydah, by insects among other things, was far worse than even the disturbing "guidelines" established in the memo.
Wizner noted that Yoo's and the other torture memos were not truly legitimate legal opinons for the supposedly impartial White House Office of Legal Counsel, but rather a defense against later retribution. Arguing that the Bush administration knew the illegality of its actions, Wizner said the memos were "an effort to protect [the administration] from prosecution, from universally recognized war crimes". Wizner used the example of the "golden shield" provided by the OLC: if individuals were following OLC guidelines for legality and constitutionality, they would be extremely difficult to prosecute. These secret laws, guidelines and legal opinions not only gave authorization for the military to use torture, but first and foremost provided protection for administration and military officials from prosecution. For this reason, Wizner argues it is critical to directly challenge the memo authors, like Yoo and Bibey, and those who commissioned them in the Bush administration.
One of the problems Wizner said was most troublesome is how there has been no debate surrounding torture, only narratives. By discovering our torture program in a piecemeal fashion, Wizner argued that the Bush administration was able to frame torture as an acceptable national security necessity. There were two competing and mutually exclusive narratives said Wizner, a "bad apples" frame in which America does not torture but a few "bad apples" do, and the "ticking time bomb" narrative wherein torture is a necessity. As Wizner pointed out, these two frames are abusrdly opposed: one articulates torture as a moral wrong used only by a few moral degenerates (as the Bush administration characterized the Guantanamo Bay torture), while the other argues that torture is both morally correct and necessary for national security. These two narratives existed at the same time, and unfortunately never caused a media debate or public outrage.
In conclusion, Wizner said that the only way to "look forward" (in Obama's words) is by addressing the omnipresent specter of our recent past. For Wizner, the only way to restore the United States' reputation is if we actively uphold our international treaties and conventions surrounding torture. This means, in other words, not attempting to avoid prosecutions of Bush administration officials out fear that it will grind Washington politics to a halt. Wizner argued that it was this exclusion of certain politicians from legal retribution politicizes the legal system.
I couldn't agree more: not prosecuting obvious war crimes ruins our international credibility, makes us hypocrites on issues of morality, allows other countries to use us an excuse to torture, and establishes that political power can put you outside the reach of the law. Nothing could be more antithetical to what I perceive to be the promise of the United states. Moving on means facing our collective demons and showing to the world that we can be its moral compass. That is true leadership. After the Bush years, that would be change I can believe in.
On the 22nd, I came to the lecture hall expecting minimal turnout. From my experience as an RA, I know that anything less than an all-out advertising blitz usually results in low turnout. Thankfully, this was not the case. The hall was packed, and I was glad to know all the questions for Mr. Wizner would not be my own.
The beginning of Mr. Wizner's lecture was spent alternating between reading John Yoo's infamous "you would like" torture memo and reading the Red Cross testimony of Abu Zubaydah. Wizner provided a striking contrast between all of the forms of torture Yoo authorized in the memo with the actual memories and suffering endured by Abu Zubaydah. Part of what was truly horrifying about hearing the two pieces together was realizing how sterile and deceptive Yoo's methodical descriptions of the techniques he authorized were in comparison to the deeds that were actually committed.
To quote John Yoo's 2002 memo, "You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects... As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure you are outside the predicate death requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death...". The fact that this extremely Orwellian authorization failed in any way to capture the horrors of Zubaydah's experience is testament to the true nature of the memos. The torture endured by Zubaydah, by insects among other things, was far worse than even the disturbing "guidelines" established in the memo.
Wizner noted that Yoo's and the other torture memos were not truly legitimate legal opinons for the supposedly impartial White House Office of Legal Counsel, but rather a defense against later retribution. Arguing that the Bush administration knew the illegality of its actions, Wizner said the memos were "an effort to protect [the administration] from prosecution, from universally recognized war crimes". Wizner used the example of the "golden shield" provided by the OLC: if individuals were following OLC guidelines for legality and constitutionality, they would be extremely difficult to prosecute. These secret laws, guidelines and legal opinions not only gave authorization for the military to use torture, but first and foremost provided protection for administration and military officials from prosecution. For this reason, Wizner argues it is critical to directly challenge the memo authors, like Yoo and Bibey, and those who commissioned them in the Bush administration.
One of the problems Wizner said was most troublesome is how there has been no debate surrounding torture, only narratives. By discovering our torture program in a piecemeal fashion, Wizner argued that the Bush administration was able to frame torture as an acceptable national security necessity. There were two competing and mutually exclusive narratives said Wizner, a "bad apples" frame in which America does not torture but a few "bad apples" do, and the "ticking time bomb" narrative wherein torture is a necessity. As Wizner pointed out, these two frames are abusrdly opposed: one articulates torture as a moral wrong used only by a few moral degenerates (as the Bush administration characterized the Guantanamo Bay torture), while the other argues that torture is both morally correct and necessary for national security. These two narratives existed at the same time, and unfortunately never caused a media debate or public outrage.
In conclusion, Wizner said that the only way to "look forward" (in Obama's words) is by addressing the omnipresent specter of our recent past. For Wizner, the only way to restore the United States' reputation is if we actively uphold our international treaties and conventions surrounding torture. This means, in other words, not attempting to avoid prosecutions of Bush administration officials out fear that it will grind Washington politics to a halt. Wizner argued that it was this exclusion of certain politicians from legal retribution politicizes the legal system.
I couldn't agree more: not prosecuting obvious war crimes ruins our international credibility, makes us hypocrites on issues of morality, allows other countries to use us an excuse to torture, and establishes that political power can put you outside the reach of the law. Nothing could be more antithetical to what I perceive to be the promise of the United states. Moving on means facing our collective demons and showing to the world that we can be its moral compass. That is true leadership. After the Bush years, that would be change I can believe in.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Congressional leaders agree to try Gitmo detainees in US
For the first time since Guantanamo Bay's establishment as a detainment facility by George W. Bush in 2002, congressional leaders have agreeed to try the detained in the United States. This is a landmark decision that is a dramatic reversal of the unconstitutional system of military tribunals currently being implemented in Guantanamo Bay. This is not to say that this "compromise", as the NY Times calls it, is not highly problematic.
I have several questions I'd like to ask about the agreement in question:
1. Does this mean the prisoners will be granted habeus corpus rights? Can they go to trial in the US when we haven't even informed of their alleged crime?
2. The article states: "In addition, it was not clear whether the compromise would permit detainees to be brought to the United States for indefinite detention. An undetermined number of detainees are deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be put on trial because there is insufficient evidence against them". Is there the possibility that we will suspend habeus corpus on US soil? The entire Bush "legal argument", as articulated and ultimately rejected in Boumediene v. Bush, was that the constitution's 4th amendment protections don't apply on foreign soil. This appears to leave open the possibility that we will simply continue to detain prisoners whom we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Does this compromise intend to only send suspected "dangerous" inmates to trial if we are sure of conviction? Last time I checked, that's not how the criminal justice system works.
3. Why would the agreement "forbid the Obama administration from releasing detainees in the United States"? If they are found innocent in the criminal justice system, aren't we obligated to release them? Where do we send them? To their home countries to face persecution and suspicion (or in the case of the Chinese Uighurs, death)? This seems to follow the same fear-inspired logic that caused congress to forbid Gitmo detainees from being held in US maximum security prisons. Nobody has ever escaped from a maximum security prison. Not the Unabomber, not Charles Manson,and certainly no terrorists. If our system of laws deems these detainees guilty, why can they not be held in our extremely effective high-security prisons? If they are innocent, what right have we not to release them immediately?
I have several questions I'd like to ask about the agreement in question:
1. Does this mean the prisoners will be granted habeus corpus rights? Can they go to trial in the US when we haven't even informed of their alleged crime?
2. The article states: "In addition, it was not clear whether the compromise would permit detainees to be brought to the United States for indefinite detention. An undetermined number of detainees are deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be put on trial because there is insufficient evidence against them". Is there the possibility that we will suspend habeus corpus on US soil? The entire Bush "legal argument", as articulated and ultimately rejected in Boumediene v. Bush, was that the constitution's 4th amendment protections don't apply on foreign soil. This appears to leave open the possibility that we will simply continue to detain prisoners whom we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Does this compromise intend to only send suspected "dangerous" inmates to trial if we are sure of conviction? Last time I checked, that's not how the criminal justice system works.
3. Why would the agreement "forbid the Obama administration from releasing detainees in the United States"? If they are found innocent in the criminal justice system, aren't we obligated to release them? Where do we send them? To their home countries to face persecution and suspicion (or in the case of the Chinese Uighurs, death)? This seems to follow the same fear-inspired logic that caused congress to forbid Gitmo detainees from being held in US maximum security prisons. Nobody has ever escaped from a maximum security prison. Not the Unabomber, not Charles Manson,and certainly no terrorists. If our system of laws deems these detainees guilty, why can they not be held in our extremely effective high-security prisons? If they are innocent, what right have we not to release them immediately?
Friday, May 1, 2009
Matthew Shepard Act Passes in House
The Matthew Shepard Act, which would extend federal protection to LGBT victims of violence under a hate-crimes passed in the House yesterday by a 249-175 vote. This is a landmark bill that hopefully will help make sure that perpetrators of hate crimes like the men who killed Matthew Shepard in 1998. It's times like these that I'm glad that there's a 78-seat Democratic party advantage in the House. Hopefully the more problematic (and undemocratic) will pull through and rally behind the Matthew Shepard act for what it is: the next major step in civil rights.
With a bill that does nothing but protect individuals from hate-crimes based on avictim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, one might wonder what those 175 representatives objected to. The answer, according to a Fox News story is that social conservatives feel that the Matthew Shepard Act chills free speech. Really? Last time I checked, tying a 21 year old boy to fence, pistol whipping him, torturing him, crushing his brain stem and leaving him to die in rural Laramie isn't free speech. Hate-crimes bills aren't designed to quash dissenting ideas, they seek to protect individuals from violent offenses based on their identity. Shame on you House Republicans. This is beyond political, its inhuman.
The far-right position that protecting people like Matthew Shepard is a bad idead isn't even as crazy as the Republican response gets. We expect more out of the party of Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, right? An article in the Huffington Post shares the delifghtful opinion of North Carolina congresswoman Virginia Foxx that Matthew Shepard's death was all a hoax. In her alternate reality, Matthew Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and his death as a victim of a hate-crime was invented to further the liberal agenda and impose "oppresive" bills that protect the innocent like the Matthw Shepard Act. Though Foxx later apologized for using the word "hoax", Shepard's mother Judy wasn't exactly mollified saying: "It's apologizing for semantics, not her ignorance". Tell it like it is Judy!
In response to the passage of the Matthew Shepard Bill in the House, the always awesome Rachel Maddow had Judy Shepard on to discuss the new bill. The interview is absolutely brilliant and very moving. Check it out:
Rachel Maddow's impassioned defense of hate-crimes legislation from the segment is also perhaps the best I've ever heard:
"MADDOW: The concept behind this kind of legislation is often misconstrued but here's the deal as I understand it. The idea is that the federal Justice Department can get involved in a case to help local authorities or even to take the lead on a case if need be, in prosecuting individual serious violet crimes and murders in which the victim was selected on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability - the idea that crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community, and so there is a national interest in ensuring that those crimes are solved and prosecuted, particularly if local law enforcement doesn't want to because they are blinkered by the same prejudice that led to the crime in the first place."
Hate-crimes bills aren't about political corectness: this is protecting real people's lives and real endangered commmunities.
With a bill that does nothing but protect individuals from hate-crimes based on avictim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, one might wonder what those 175 representatives objected to. The answer, according to a Fox News story is that social conservatives feel that the Matthew Shepard Act chills free speech. Really? Last time I checked, tying a 21 year old boy to fence, pistol whipping him, torturing him, crushing his brain stem and leaving him to die in rural Laramie isn't free speech. Hate-crimes bills aren't designed to quash dissenting ideas, they seek to protect individuals from violent offenses based on their identity. Shame on you House Republicans. This is beyond political, its inhuman.
The far-right position that protecting people like Matthew Shepard is a bad idead isn't even as crazy as the Republican response gets. We expect more out of the party of Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, right? An article in the Huffington Post shares the delifghtful opinion of North Carolina congresswoman Virginia Foxx that Matthew Shepard's death was all a hoax. In her alternate reality, Matthew Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and his death as a victim of a hate-crime was invented to further the liberal agenda and impose "oppresive" bills that protect the innocent like the Matthw Shepard Act. Though Foxx later apologized for using the word "hoax", Shepard's mother Judy wasn't exactly mollified saying: "It's apologizing for semantics, not her ignorance". Tell it like it is Judy!
In response to the passage of the Matthew Shepard Bill in the House, the always awesome Rachel Maddow had Judy Shepard on to discuss the new bill. The interview is absolutely brilliant and very moving. Check it out:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Rachel Maddow's impassioned defense of hate-crimes legislation from the segment is also perhaps the best I've ever heard:
"MADDOW: The concept behind this kind of legislation is often misconstrued but here's the deal as I understand it. The idea is that the federal Justice Department can get involved in a case to help local authorities or even to take the lead on a case if need be, in prosecuting individual serious violet crimes and murders in which the victim was selected on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability - the idea that crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community, and so there is a national interest in ensuring that those crimes are solved and prosecuted, particularly if local law enforcement doesn't want to because they are blinkered by the same prejudice that led to the crime in the first place."
Hate-crimes bills aren't about political corectness: this is protecting real people's lives and real endangered commmunities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
