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.

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 13^th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, the 14^th Amendment granted their citizenship, and the 15^th 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.

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.

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.”