
Commentaries
“Sound-Bite” Politics - Shallow Analysis and the Sinking of
Senator Obama
This 2008 presidential election process is one of the most
historic in American history. For the first time in the history
of this country a major political party is poised to nominate
for president either an African American man or a woman.
Senator Obama’s lead in the primary race with wins in Colorado,
Utah, Iowa and other states are a clear indication that
American’s are making progress in being able to see beyond race
and focus on real issues. The fact that Senator Clinton is
close to Senator Obama in delegates is an indication that
American’s are also looking past sexism and focusing on real
issues.
However, there are deep issues with this process and the manner
in which main stream media outlets are using distortions to
distract the American electorate. These distractions are
causing real problems for Senator Obama. Television networks
ABC, NBC, CNN, and others, as well as newspaper sources such as
the Washington Post and New York Times are deliberately
distracting Americans with sound-bites and shallow analysis.
When you compare Michelle Obama’s comments regarding her pride
in America, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, Senator Obama’s
“bitter” comment regarding economically oppressed individuals
and their focus on religion and guns, and his not wearing a
lapel pin, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, home
foreclosures, job loss, and affordable health care you have to
ask what’s really important in this election?
The use of sound bites in and of themselves is not a problem.
They are effective tools that have been used for years by the
media as well as candidates to convey messages and slogans in a
short concise manner. Over time, sound bits have become shorter
and shorter. In the late 60’s the average campaign sound bite
lasted approximately forty-two seconds. Since 1988, that number
has been reduced to less than ten seconds. It is difficult, if
not impossible, to convey complex concepts in an eight second
sound bite.
Sound bites that are not properly framed within the context that
they are made can become very dangerous and inflammatory. When
these unframed statements are compounded by shallow analysis,
the electorate’s perceptions can be irreversibly impacted.
Nobody understands this better than campaign strategists and
media specialists. This is what has been done and continues to
be done to Senator Obama.
On February 18, 2008
Michelle Obama said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime,
I’m really proud of my country … not just because Barack
has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change
… I have been desperate to see our country moving in that
direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and
disappointment.” From this statement Michelle Obama found
herself having to answer questions about her patriotism and is
this the first time she’s proud of her country. Even Senator
McCain’s wife Cindy jumped in the fray with by saying, “I am
proud of my country … I don’t know if you heard those words
earlier … but I am very proud of my country.”
First of all, she said
“really” proud, not proud or finally proud. She did not state
that she had never been proud before. Her pride has been
enhanced by the events she is experiencing. Secondly, Michelle
Obama was born in 1964 and became an adult in 1982, the
beginning of the Reagan Revolution. During her adult lifetime
she has witnessed what so many African Americans witnessed
during that era, the intentional reversal of many of the gains
that had been made during the Civil Rights era. As an African
American man, it was so clear to me what this African American
woman was expressing. However, the media has mostly ignored the
perceptions of many African Americans during that era, choosing
instead to rewrite history by glorifying the Reagan era. Main
stream media just did not get it, or chose to ignore the
experience and realities of many African Americans.
Rev. Dr. Jeremiah
Wright’s comments have been written about ad nauseam. Very
little analysis of his statements has been allowed. Most of the
coverage and dialogue has involved individuals of like mind.
Even those who have tried to provide some clarity or perspective
have been reluctant to defend the validity of Rev. Dr. Wright’s
comments and his right to say them.
As Rev. Dr. Wright
appeared on Bill Moyer’s program and spoke at the National Press
Club he was criticized. People asked; why doesn’t he just go
away? They talk about his ego and self-serving nature. It is
important to remember, Rev. Dr. Wright did not seek the
spotlight. He did not go to CNN or ABC and say, “I’m Senator
Obama’s pastor…please pay attention to me.” His sermons were
hijacked, his perspective compromised, and his good name and
good works ignored. This was done for one reason and one reason
only; to inject race front-and-center into Senator Obama’s
deracialized campaign. In order to accomplish this, the media
has presented to America the image of an angry and radical Black
man (Rev. Wright) and has tied Senator Obama to that image. It
is fear by association.
Sound bite politics
were used during the Pennsylvania democratic primary to distract
voters from the real issues. On April 12, 2008 during a
fundraiser in San Francisco, Senator Obama said the following: “You
go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of
small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25
years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the
Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each
successive administration has said that somehow these
communities are gonna regenerate and they have not… And it's not
surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion
or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant
sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations."
Senator Clinton and Senator McCain with the help of a lot of
pundits and commentators have made this out to be a ridiculous
statement by an elitist politician. All of those who have
criticized Senator Obama for this statement have ignored the
fact that it is true. Thomas Frank’s great book, What’s The
Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Hearts of
America”, chronicles how hard-time conservative politics has
been used to convince many voters in one of the most
economically depressed parts of American, to vote against their
interests. This has been achieved by creating a political
climate based on wedge issues of gays, guns, and God (I would
also add xenophobia or the fear of others as the illegal
immigration issue has been used).
Finally, the flag pin issue. Senator Obama has been under
attack for not wearing an American Flag pin in his lapel. As I
watched Senator Obama’s interview with Chris Wallace and this
issue came up, I noticed Chris Wallace was not wearing one
either. Has this one pin become the standard of measure for
one’s patriotism? President Bush 43 wears a flag pin in his
lapel. Yet, his attacks on American’s civil liberties and civil
rights, coupled with his ability to ignore the Constitution when
it becomes a frivolous obstacle to his objectives, makes me
question his patriotism.
All of these manufactured distractions, intentional distortions,
conveniently omitted facts and for what reason? Americans
should expect and demand more from their reporters, commentators
and journalists. Sound bite politics are now being used by
reporters, commentators, and journalists to further their own
agendas, careers and the agendas of their corporate bosses at
the expense of conveying real information and substantive
analysis.
Information is power. It is what you do with information that
makes you powerful.
(c) 2008 InfoWave Communications, LLC
The “Willie Hortonization”
of Senator Barack Obama and the Audacity of Truth
Over the past few weeks main stream media has turned much of its
attention to the fiery sermons of the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright.
Rev. Dr. Wright is pastor to Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and his
family. He was also, until recently, the pastor of the Trinity
United Church of Christ of Chicago.
Most
of the discussion and commentary about Rev. Wright’s sermons
have come from a predominantly white media. The points of
discussion have centered on what they consider to be the “vial,
racist, and un-American things” said by Rev. Wright. Very few,
if any of the discussions have focused on the historical basis
and accuracy of what Dr. Wright actually said.
The major problem with the discussions is they have been largely
one-sided. The media has used the imagery of Dr. Wright, clad in
African garb, shouting in the cadence of an old-time fire and
brimstone minister and playing to the camera as a scare tactic.
Has this
become the “Willie Hortonization” of Senator Barack Obama? The
reporting and commentary on Rev. Wright’s words have been
presented from the perspective of people who either have no
appreciation for the African American historical experience or a
personal agenda when it comes to presenting these issues.
Rev. Dr. Wright is under attack for saying such things as “…the
government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a
three strikes law, and then wants us (African Americans) to sing
God Bless America, no, no, no; not God Bless America, God damn
America, …for killing innocent people, God damn America for
treating its citizens as less than human…” These are very
strong words, delivered at what many are calling a possible
turning point in American history with regards to America’s
willingness to elect an African-American candidate. While the
main stream media has found no merit in any of Rev. Wright’s
statements, let’s examine their merit from an historical basis.
When people read the Constitution, the supreme law of the United
States, they see the oldest governing constitution in the world.
They see a great document that has articulated the precepts of
life, liberty, and happiness that all in this country try to
follow. What is often overlooked are the parts of the
Constitution that laid the foundation for hundreds of years of
slavery and oppression for African Americans; the constitutional
frame work for human beings to be treated as less than human.
It’s these sections of the Constitution that America has never
truly atoned for and still refuses to make right.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution stated, “Representatives
and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states
which may be included within this union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number of free persons, including those bound to service
for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.” This was
known as the Three-Fifths Compromise and laid the ground work
for African slaves brought into America as forced labor to be
defined as non-persons.
Article I, Section 9
allowed for the importation of slaves to continue in America for
twenty-one years after ratification of the Constitution by
allowing for, “The
Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight
hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such
Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This
section only outlawed the importation of slaves once the
domestic stock of slaves could be replenished by natural birth
rates and importation would no longer be needed; again,
treating its citizens as less than human.
Article IV, Section 2
stated,
“No Person held to Service or
Labour
in one
State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from
such Service or
Labour,
But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
Service or
Labour
may be due.” This was enforced by Congress on September 18,
1850 when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, allowing Southern
states to reclaim slaves that had escaped to the North.
The Three Fifths Compromise and the Fugitive
Slave provisions were superseded by Constitutional amendments
only after their damage to African Americans had been done and
the benefit to America had been served.
It is very easy to wrap oneself in the history
and glory that is America and forget that from 1619 – 1868 (249
years) African Americans suffered under the brutality and
oppression of government supported chattel slavery. In 1857 as
Dred Scott, a slave, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his
freedom, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote, “beings
of an inferior order (African Americans), and altogether unfit
to associate with the white race, either in social or political
relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the
white man was bound to respect."
Even after the 13th Amendment
abolished slavery in 1865, the 14th Amendment granted
their citizenship, and the 15th Amendment grated them
the right to vote, from 1876 – 1965 (89 years) African Americans
continued to suffer under state supported Jim Crow oppression in
America. This was codified in 1896 by another Supreme Court
decision,
Plessy v. Ferguson
which upheld the constitutionality of racial
segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal. These
vestiges of slavery and oppression still plague many sectors of
the African community and the sense of white privilege this
created continues to foster as false sense of white entitlement.
This is just the historical background for Rev.
Dr. Wright’s comments. During his lifetime he has dealt with
segregated schools, separate and unequal education,
discrimination in housing, employment, and lending. Rev. Dr.
Wright has witnessed civil rights protesters beaten by the
police, ravaged by dogs, brutalized by fire hoses, and
COINTELPRO. Since his birth in 1941, an estimated 40 African
Americans have been lynched in this country. He was 14 years
old when Emmett Till was brutally murdered and 23 years old when
Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were killed. Americans continue
to deal with racial profiling, driving while Black, the
disproportionate rate of incarceration of African American’s,
the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, and
other Constitutional violations.
Regarding Dr. Wright’s comments about drugs and
AIDS, let’s not forget the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments. From
1932
to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an
experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis.
These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one
of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease
they were suffering from or of its seriousness. In his May 16,
1997 apology, President Bill Clinton said,
“The United States
government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly,
morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity
and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.”
With this historical understanding, it is not too
far fetched to think that the U.S. Government could be involved
in similar activity as it relates to AIDS.
What has been conspicuously absent from the
discussions about Rev. Dr. Wright’s comments in main stream
media is any analysis of the validity of his comments based upon
his personal history and life experiences. It is very easy for
white commentators such as Bill O’Reilly to dismiss his sermons
as racist diatribes since O’Reilly has no interest in trying to
understand the plight of people of color in America.
Rev. Dr. Wright has also said, “We have supported
state terrorism against the Palestinian’s and Black South
African’s and now we are indignant because the stuff we have
done over seas is brought right back into our own front yard,
America’s chickens are coming home to roost...” Well, let’s
examine the record.
The Arms Exports Control Act prohibits the
president from furnishing military aid to any country which
engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights. In spite of all of the
evidence supporting claims of the Israeli government’s human
rights abuses of the Palestinian people,
for FY2005 the United States
provided $2.22 billion in military aid. This aid to Israel has a
dramatic effect on Israel's policies towards the Palestinians.
It is the U.S. funding that pays for the guns and ammunition,
F-16 bombers, and Apache helicopters that are used to carry out
Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and people.
According to the Boston
Globe, in 1984 just after Reagan’s re-election
Bishop Desmond Tutu,
referred to the Reagan Administrations support for the South
African government as "Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian."
Reagan ignored the rising number of Americans who were calling
for American companies to stop doing business there.” The
president of so-called sunny optimism attempted to blind
Americans with his policy of "constructive engagement" with the
white minority regime in Pretoria. All constructive engagement
did was gave the white minority more time to mow down the black
majority in the streets and keep dreamers of democracy, such as
Nelson Mandela, behind bars.”
American history is replete
with examples of the United States arranging to depose foreign
leaders. In 1909 President Taft ordered the overthrow of
Nicaraguan president Zelaya. According to Stephen Kinzer, “In
Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, diplomats and
intelligence agents replaced generals as the instruments of
American intervention.” More recent examples of US intervention
would be the invasion of Panama and the illegal invasion of
Iraq.
Some may take issue with the
earlier statement,
“…the government gives them the drugs, builds
bigger prisons, passes a three strikes law,…” by asking, “is
Rev. Wright accusing the U.S. Government of supplying drugs to
the Black community?” This story has been well documented in
the 1996 San Jose Mercury News expose entitled “Dark
Alliance: The CIA Complicity in the Crack Epidemic.”
I can understand people
being uncomfortable with the comments made by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah
Wright. White Americans have also been
lied to, mis-educated and desensitized about the plight of
African Americans. With the help of the social conservative
agenda, many have developed a “deaf ear” when it comes to issues
regarding race. The truth, especially an ugly truth that
forces Americans to examine the precepts of America, “with
liberty and justice for all” and compare them with the hypocrisy
of the American reality can be troubling. For far too long,
American’s have been lulled into a false sense of security.
American’s have believed the history as told by the oppressor
and failed to understand the reality of the oppressed.
Rev. Dr. Wright is not
un-American. He embodies what American was founded upon, the
free exchange of ideas in the public space, speaking truth to
power, challenging America to be the best that it can be. Rev.
Dr. Jeremiah
Wright’s views might not reconcile with many Americans
perceptions of America, but they must not be discarded as the
ranting of an angry man. His statements were founded in the
historical truths that African Americans have and continue to
live through.
(c) 2008 InfoWave
Communications, LLC
Mr. President, I
Beg Your Pardon?
On March 5, 2007,
I. Lewis Libby Jr., the
former chief of staff to Vice President
Dick Cheney, was convicted
of four felony counts. Libby was charged with obstruction of
justice, giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and committing perjury twice before the grand
jury. The grand jury was investigating the leak of the identity
of a
C.I.A. operative in the
summer of 2003.
In order to ensure that individuals are not
arbitrarily denied their civil rights and civil liberties, a
number of protections were written into the Constitution. The
Fifth Amendment (The Due Process Clause) reads in part “No
person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law…” This is the fundamental
principle that the government cannot arbitrarily
select which rights it will recognize when it prosecutes an
individual. An individual must be afforded all of the
protections under the law and the court must follow all of the
proper processes during prosecution.
The Sixth Amendment states in part, “In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” This
guarantees Americans will be judged by a jury of their peers.
Libby was afforded all of the constitutional
protections possible. He was tried in a court of law, provided
“due process” and was tried by an impartial jury of his peers.
As a result of this he was found guilty. Now he faces up to
twenty-five years in prison for his crimes. Had Libby simply
told the truth in the beginning, this discussion would be moot.
How can we ask a federal prosecutor to ignore obstructing
justice and multiple lies to a grand jury?
As a result of this verdict, many Libby
supporters are calling upon President Bush to pardon him. If a
trial by jury was good enough for Thomas Jefferson, when he
said,
“I
consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
Constitution,” why have so many of the self-
appointed
standard bearers of democracy
misplaced their copies of the constitution in an
attempt to circumvent the judicial process? With all of this
being true, many of the self-anointed moral standard bearers of
America have conveniently cast their Bibles aside in order to
ignore the Eighth Commandment “Thou Shall Not Bear False
Witness” or “Thou Shall Not Tell a Lie. Who are they really
trying to protect with this call for a pardon? What are they
trying to hide?
In response to Libby’s conviction, the editorial
section in The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard,
National Review and conservative admirers and friends of Mr.
Libby are all making this case. How can any one who claims to
have one ounce of morality or ethics in their being, actually
defend this position? Let’s examine some the justifications that
are being given for pardoning Libby.
The Wall Street Journal states
“The time
for a pardon is now…” in order to put this matter to rest.
William
Kristol of The Weekly Standard feels that the charges were
frivolous and writes, “…that
the Scooter Libby perjury case should not have been brought in
the first place.” Well, fortunately for America, we don’t
prosecute by public consensus. A well respected federal
prosecutor saw enough evidence to bring a case to trial. Based
upon the merits of the case and the evidence presented, a jury
of his peers found I. Lewis Libby guilty. Kristol continues,
“…It is also true that decisions by the trial judge made it
difficult for Libby's team to put its best defense forward and
that a D.C. jury was going to be tough for any Bush-Cheney
official.” Please bear in mind, the presiding judge in this
case, Reggie
B. Walton, is well respected by his peers and has a spotless
record as a jurist and as a human being. Judge Walton was
nominated to the position in 2001 by President George W. Bush.
He previously served as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and 1991 to 2001,
having been appointed to that position by Presidents Ronald
Reagan in 1981 and George H. W. Bush in 1991.
If his peers trust his decision-making ability along with three
presidents, why can’t you? Also, what is inherent in D.C. juries
that would make it difficult for any Bush-Cheney official? Some
of the jurors have stated clearly, they support a pardon but
facts as presented in the case supported a guilty verdict.
Joseph Bottum of The Weekly Standard writes, ‘The
case was a political trial from the beginning--and the opponents
lined up in a properly political way.” Sorry, the case was not
a political trial. The media presentation of the issue may have
been political but when you read the transcripts of the
proceedings, the law was followed and the jury properly
performed their duties as called for by the rules of criminal
procedure. Lest we forget,
obstructing justice and giving false statements to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation are crimes in this country. The GOP
controlled the House, Senate, Executive Branch, and the
Department of Justice at the time that the investigation began.
This is also the same GOP controlled government that did away
with the Special Prosecutor Law as soon as President George Bush
(43) came into office.
Linda Chavez writes in The Post Chronicle, “Libby
now faces up to 25 years in prison for lying to federal
prosecutors and obstructing justice, but he was clearly a
scapegoat for the man prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and at least
some members of the jury wanted to put behind bars: Vice
President Dick Cheney.” Well, that’s easy to fix, Libby should
give us Vice President Dick Cheney. Deals are always cut, not
pardons given, in pursuit of the “bigger fish.” How is Libby a
“scapegoat?” He lied! He was not framed; he lied! In a
conspiracy, all co-conspirators are guilty, not just the one at
the top. In a bank robbery, the driver of the getaway car is as
guilty as the person who goes into the bank and steals the money
(unless he/she turns on the others). Just because you call a
grown man “Scooter” doesn’t mean you should still treat him like
a child.
When I. Lewis Libby
assumed his position as the chief of staff to Vice President
Dick Cheney, he swore an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States of America against all
enemies, both foreign and domestic. The leaking of
the identity of
a
C.I.A. operative, Valerie
Plame-Wilson (no matter who did it), put her life and the lives
of those around her in great peril, ended her career with the
C.I.A, and may have done damage to the security interests of the
United States. Any attempt to cover that up is a crime. That
was done by high-ranking members of the Bush administration for
political gain and intimidation. If that had been done by an
average citizen or some other foreign individual, it would have
been viewed by President Bush as a terrorist act by an enemy
combatant. Instead of a pardon, we would be hearing about how
that individual was held incommunicado in a military brig for
over 2 years or extraordinarily renditioned and flown to Syria
against their will and tortured for a year. Isn’t it ironic that
the same administration that claims to be protecting America
against terrorists leaks the identity of an under cover C.I.A.
agent as political retribution against her husband.
This administration has a
history of sacrificing the political and military careers of
individuals who sought to tell the truth, but who’s truth was
contrary to the administrations agenda. For example, former
Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, General’s John Abizaid and
George Casey, and lest we forget, eight former Assistant U.S.
Attorney’s who may not have been prosecuting democrats fast
enough.
Libby appears to value the
“blood oath” he swore to Vice President Cheney and President
Bush more than his oath to the United States and the Americans
to whom he was sworn to serve. This is not a government; the
Bush administration is operating more like a South Central LA
gang, “blood in, blood out” or the Mafia, “you never rat on the
family.”
President Bush and Vice President Cheney
constantly remind us of the importance of “the message that we
are sending abroad.” Once again, the image of America lies in
the balance. What message are we sending to our children?
Obstructing
justice, giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and committing perjury before the grand jury are
honorable and acceptable if you do it to protect your friends
and intimidate your political enemies?
The
New York Times quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV),
“Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for
his criminal conduct” and Senator Reid is correct. This is not
a partisan issue; this is a democracy issue. It is time for all
Americans of good conscience and morality to stand up, bring as
much pressure as possible to bear, and let their elected
representatives know that America belongs to “We The People.”
The pardon President Bush wants to grant Libby is not his to
give.
(c) 2007 InfoWave
Communications, LLC
We Have Met The Enemy and The Enemy Is Us
When read in the context of
the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United
States of America (The Constitution) is truly one of the most
impressive documents of governance ever written. It contains
approximately 4,300 words, was completed in 1787, and 220 years
later is the oldest operating constitution in the world.
Compare this with the proposed Constitution of the European
Union, which is approximately 60,000 words and not yet
ratified.
The Constitution in its
original form was far from perfect. Written into the document
were justifications for oppression and slavery such as Article
I, Section 2, known as the three-fifths compromise, Article I,
Section 9 allowed the slave trade to exist until 1808, and
Article IV, Section 2 allowed the rendition or capture and
return of escaped slaves to the “…Party to whom such Service or
Labor may be due.” In spite of these flaws, at its core are the
revolutionary principles of natural law and social contract
theory as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. These
concepts forever changed how people view themselves in relation
to their government. It is not the words that make these
documents great; it is America’s reverence for these concepts
that make the Constitution what it is.
Natural law states that
people possess the God given, or natural right to govern
themselves as opposed to the earlier concept of divine
justification of a king or monarch. Social contract theory is
the idea that people in a civilized society consent to be
governed by a set of standards and elect representatives in
order to protect these natural rights. Most importantly, as
stated in the Declaration of Independence, “…That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government…” In other words, the People must always hold
their elected representatives accountable for their actions.
Since its inception, the
Constitution has been the world standard for liberty, equality,
and justice under the law. For example, in 1945 the Vietnamese
based their documents of freedom upon our own. The European
Union in 2003 and the Iraqi Constitution in 2005 were also based
upon our Constitution. According to a June 25, 1996 Wall Street
Journal report, only 39 countries (25% of the world's
independent nations) were democratic in 1974. By 1996, 66% of
the world’s independent nations were implementing democratic
processes to choose their top leaders. Those numbers have
continued to grow, again, based upon the U.S. model.
Outside of the political
realm, as multinational corporations have expanded their reach
and influence through globalization, American concepts of
fairness and equality as articulated in The Constitution, have
been used internationally to address sweat shops, child labor,
women’s rights, illegal detention, and ecological racism in many
foreign countries. For so many decades, in spite of its
imperfections, America, because of The Constitution, has been
the stalwart of democracy and the beacon of hope for so many
people throughout the world.
Have the actions of the current Bush
administration forever tarnished America’s reputation in the
minds of those abroad? According to a PEW Research Center
survey, an independent research company “…anti-Americanism is
deeper and broader now than at any time in modern history… On
matters of international security, the rest of the world has
become deeply suspicious of U.S. motives and openly skeptical of
its word.”
On the domestic front, laws
that cut at the core of American democracy have been implemented
without public debate. According to the New York Times, “The
president can now use military troops as a domestic police force
in response to a natural disaster, … terrorist attack or to any
“other condition.”” In October of 2006, at the very last minute,
the administration slipped into the defense budget bill
provisions to undercut posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act
of 1807. These two actions now make it easier for the president
to declare martial law. It is the undefined “other condition”
that should be of greatest concern to the American public. The
fact that this was added to the defense bill by the
administration and the Democrats did nothing to bring it to the
public’s attention is reprehensible.
Also, habeas corpus,
a persons right to object to his or another's
detention or imprisonment has been weakened.
According to the Associated Press, a federal
appeals court has held that foreign-born prisoners seized as
terrorists by the U.S. government and held off shore may not
challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. It is now
left up to military tribunals to police themselves and make this
determination according to the Military Commissions Act. Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated, this is a dangerous and misguided
law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by
removing vital checks and balances that would restore detainees’
legal rights. This could gravely impact approximately 12
million lawful permanent residents who currently reside in the
U.S.
The Bush administration
constantly admonishes those who question their motives and
challenge the constitutionality of their actions. Members of
the administration accuse critics of emboldening the
“insurgents” and sending the wrong message to our troops and our
enemies. With it now being easier for
the president to declare martial law as well as chipping away at
the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus, the U.S.
is looking more and more like the dictatorships it went to war
to overthrow. What message is that sending? The U.S. will
impose democracy upon others at the barrel of a gun but usurp
and violate its own constitution when following its precepts
proves to be inconvenient. Benjamin Franklin said “Those
who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
The U.S. invaded Iraq in order to overthrow an
evil dictator who, among other things, imprisoned and tortured
his critics in order to silence them. According to the
Guardian Unlimited “… at the US detention camp at Guantánamo
Bay in Cuba ...According to the Red Cross, the regime at
Guantánamo causes psychological suffering that has driven
inmates mad, with scores of suicide attempts and three inmates
killing themselves last year. Even US officials are
shocked...FBI documents revealed that an inmate's head had been
wrapped in tape for quoting from the Qur'an. Another was
humiliated for his religious beliefs and "baptized" by a soldier
posing as a Catholic priest. The documents show FBI agents saw
26 instances of abuse in their time at Guantánamo. The FBI is
highly skeptical about alleged confessions gained by its
military colleagues.”
The interrogation techniques
that were originally employed at Guantánamo were later
implemented in Iraq itself at Abu Ghraib. According to The
New Yorker, “In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, … was
one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly
executions, and vile living conditions.” We are all too
familiar with the now infamous Abu Ghraib photographs that
document the human rights abuses perpetrated on Iraqi’s by the
U.S. Army, and other American agencies and operatives. All the
U.S. did was replace Saddam’s torturers with U.S. torturers, all
in the name of American democracy. But torture by any entity is
still torture. As a rose by any other name…
In a
Time magazine interview on January 27, 2005, President
Bush stated,
“torture is never acceptable, nor do
we hand over people to countries that do torture.” I guess no
one told him about Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was
kidnapped by U.S. officials at Kennedy Airport in New York on
September 26, 2002, sent to Syria for months and tortured.
Eventually, he was released on October 5, 2003 without being
charged of any crimes. Again, all of this is done in the name
of American democracy.
How
does kidnapping and torturing people in the name of democracy
make us more democratic? How does violating people’s most
sacred beliefs, their religion, in the name of “The War on
Terror” endear them to you and your cause? How does this make us
safe?
Vice President Cheney has said repeatedly “ To
prevail in this fight, we must understand the nature of the
enemy...This enemy has no regard for the rules of warfare, and
is unconstrained by any standard of decency or morality...They
seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man,
woman, and child lives in total obedience to a narrow, hateful
ideology. This ideology rejects tolerance, denies freedom of
conscience…Such beliefs can be imposed only through force and
intimidation, so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants will be
brutalized or killed --- and no person or group is exempt.” This
sounds more like self-criticism than the condemnation of others.
This administration has violated its own
constitution and the Geneva Convention. It has invaded a
sovereign country, overseen the beheading of its president,
instilled fear in the hearts and minds of its own people through
lies and misinformation, and demonized an entire ethnic group of
people and their religion. How do we ever expect to win in the
court of international public opinion and win over the hearts
and minds of those who disagree with U.S. action? Are we not
engaged in the very actions and activities, both nationally and
internationally that will result in our demise? Based upon the
illegal and immoral actions of the current Bush administration,
I think Pogo the possum was correct in 1971 when he said, “we
have met the enemy, and he is us.”
(c)
2007 InfoWave Communications, LLC
|