As a transatlantic migrant, I have one foot in the UK and another in the US. That's why I find articles like this one by the Economist so amusing.
Brown's visit to the US this week was barely noticed by the US media, but obsessed about by the UK press. Every UK political commentary, from the high brow Today program on BBC Radio Four to the ever-so-slightly less intellectual tabloid newspapers was dissecting the Brown-Bush meeting for the slightest sign of deviation from Blair's sycophantic relationship with the Pres.
You see, the British politerati continues to believe in the existence of a 'special relationship' between the US and UK that implies some kind of influence on US foreign policy. This shows blissful ignorance of the fact that the UK is actually 'slightly smaller than Oregon' (according to the CIA World Factbook) with a population of 60,776,238 (US population 301,139,947) and a GDP of $1.93 trillion ppp ($13.13 trillion in the US). The US has 166,000 troops in Iraq. The UK has 5,500 (and another 1,600 will leave by the beginning of 2008). The 'two countries divided by a foreign language' turn out to be divided by quite a few other things as well.
Talk of a special relationship started after world war II, when Winston Churchill referred in his Iron Curtain speech of 1946 to a 'fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples', in other words, a 'special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States'. Despite the fact that there is some doubt as to whether the relationship ever existed, many subsequent British political leaders have attempted to maintain strong ties with the US. In the UK, history tends to stick around like that.
That said, my distain for my home country (a very typical English trait, but not necessarily a Scottish, Welsh or Irish one - there's a big difference) has limits. We have got some things right. The UK's National Health System is one. While not quite as rosy as the picture portrayed in Michael Moore's Sicko, the NHS provides mostly good quality care that is free at the point of use. The publicly funded BBC is another success story. We are becoming more aware of the effects of climate change, and making bigger commitments to policies that promote overseas development. We introduced civil partnerships for gay couples in 2005 without too much fuss, and (with the exception of Northern Ireland) issues such as abortion don't dominate the political agenda. We may only have had a minimum wage since 1999, but it rose by 27% between 2002 and 2007. Tuition fees for my four year undergraduate degree cost me a grand total of GBP 900, that's $1800 dollars. While it's increasing, gun crime is still only 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police. Crime as reported by the British Crime Survey fell by 44% between 1995 and 2005.
So despite how much the English grumble about their home, it's not all bad. It's about time we admitted it!
The US House of Representatives has passed the 2007 Farm Bill by 231 to 191 votes.
There is often a conflict between trade policies that are in the best interests of domestic groups and those that promote development in other countries. The farm bill is a rare example of a law that is detrimental to both. It rewards big agribusiness at the expense of family farmers at home and abroad. The new bill contains some good news thanks to the Democrats (improvements in the food stamps program, funding for conservation efforts and fairer taxation of US subsidiaries of foreign firms) but doesn't fundamentally reform damaging subsidies.
Of the $10 billion in payments for specific commodities in 2004, 60 percent went to just two crops--corn ($4.5 billion) and cotton ($1.6 billion). But rather than reform this discriminatory and inequitable system, legislators preferred to buy off selected critics by adding a few dollars to nutrition and conservation programs, while piling on more trade-distorting subsidies for wheat and other grains, soybeans, and sugar.
This is the real face of protectionism in the US, not family farmers or domestic manufacturers trying to compete in a system that benefits multinationals, not trade unionists and environmental activists campaigning for basic regulatory standards to be included in free trade agreements, and not protesters who question the nature of globalization. Why was there such an enormous fuss about inserting ILO standards into the text of trade agreements, yet very little protest over this incredibly unfair bill?
And why are 'free traders' in Congress willing to let this continue? Passing this bill without cutting farm subsidies shows developing countries in the WTO that the US is hardly serious about the 'development' aspects of the Doha round. The Washington Post reports that the White House has threatened a veto, on the grounds that subsidies remain high. Countries such as Brazil are critical of US and EU agricultural subsidies, the main stumbling block at a recent meeting of the G4 (Brazil, the EU, India and the US). It's enough to make even the most steadfast supporters of the Doha Development Agenda throw up their hands in disgust.
What should we do to improve this situation? First of all, let's remove food stamps from the bill. There must be a better legislative vehicle for this important program. Presidential candidates, how about putting this in your health reform plans?
Second, let's stop subsidizing big agribusiness. Oxfam America provides some good policy suggestions on this. The money could be better spent elsewhere - providing assistance to farmers that really need it, and sponsoring rural conservation and infrastructure development.
And while we're reforming fast track, let's reform the way that Congress votes on farm subsidies as well. A trade policymaking process in which Congress and trade negotiators aren't even reading from the same book, let alone on the same page, is not one that works.
Read more of Holly's posts at her blog TradingLives.
Inspectors at Beijing airport have seized and destroyed a shipment of 41 homing pigeons, after it was found that their health certification was incorrect and the number of birds failed to coincide with what was written on the accompanying documentation.
This 'retaliation' comes on the back of a series of health scares involving Chinese products. Toxic ingredients in Chinese pharmaceutical products killed two people in Panama. Americans and Europeans found industrial solvent in tubes of toothpaste. American inspectors found cancer-causing chemicals in fish, and melamine in pet food. Apart from picking on the pigeons, China has also suspended some US pork and poultry exports.
Of course, this is a symptom of much wider concerns about US trade with China- many of those in Congress are calling for the country to change its trade and monetary policies.
As I have said in my previous post on this topic, China bashing is not the answer. China poses a huge policy problem for the US because of its geography- its enormous population makes labor cheap and its large land mass makes law enforcement difficult. The results of these respectively are i) outsourcing and a huge trade deficit and ii) cheap, but sometimes sub-standard consumer products.
We must look to our own laws first. The US doesn't enforce ILO standards, the administration has allowed the currency to depreciate in order to keep the economy afloat, and we have underfunded the agency that's supposed to inspect the goods we buy. We have made it easier for companies to outsource jobs. We protect the rights of multinational companies and foreign investors over domestic producers, their workers and the public.
Both China and the US must be allowed to grow and prosper in the global economy. Let's get the policies right so that we do so in a sustainable way.
Host a watch party for the AFL-CIO presidential debate!
Our Working Families Win project has proved how successful house parties can be- getting people who have never been active in politics before to engage with issues like trade and health care. Well, here's a chance to try it for yourselves!
The AFL-CIO are encouraging us to hold 'watch parties' for their Presidential Candidates debate on August 7th. The whole thing is being broadcast on MSNBC at 7-8.30pm EST. Why not invite round friends and neighbors, sit back with a few beers (or what ever is your tipple) and get them talking about the work ADA is doing on the big issues- putting labor and environmental standards at the heart of trade agreements, raising the minimum wage, and pushing for single-payer, universal health care.
If you are a house party newbie, try these tips from Working Families Win on how to host a party.
It's grassroots organizing that's really going to make the difference in the 2008 election. Together we can build a solid majority that can change our nation for the better. Spread the word!
Read more posts by Holly at her blog TradingLives.
An article from today's CNN.com World section discusses French President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to Sub-Saharan Africa. Amidst remarks about bringing "democracy, liberty, justice and law" to Africa, Sarkozy was criticized for making empty statements, the content of which Africans already know would be beneficial to the continent.
In addition to Sarkozy's wishes for democracy in Africa, he also announced his support of the Senegalese effort to hold former Chadian President Hissene Habre accountable for political killings and torture. While some welcomed his support, others are skeptical, as France has historically stood behind dictators in Africa.
While broad statements expressing how France wants to see Africa move forward, have a bigger role in the UN, or hold dictators accountable for crimes, are all welcomed theoretically, they ring empty in the face of both France's historical role in Africa and also its merit based immigration policy. If Sarkozy truly wants to see progress in Africa he must back up his words with action, and the immigration policy would be a solid place to begin.
To read the full CNN article, click here. Cat Zweig ADA Legislative Intern
In a letter to the WTO earlier this month, 90 civil society organizations claim that the Doha round is dead:
'Ever since the launch of the Round in 2001, people all over the world, including farmers, fisherfolk, workers and trade unionists, environmentalists, faith-based groups and other civil society organizations, have been denouncing the Doha talks as paying little attention to peoples' rights and needs. “Doha was supposed to be the ‘development’ round. But what has transpired over the intervening six years has been quite the opposite”, the letter states.'
Institute a two year moratorium to provide the time and space necessary to re-think the model and process of global trade negotiations.
Stimulate public discussion and debate with governments and civil society about creating alternative trade regimes
Surely there aren't many people who would disagree with the fact that the Doha round is likely to be disappointing for developed and developing countries alike. Neither business nor civil society groups are going to be jumping for joy at the final result.
What bothers me is the lack of a convincing alternative. It maybe just that opposition is more newsworthy than a shiny new model WTO, but it seems that a significant plan hasn't been put forward. Criticizing the WTO is all very well, but let's offer something constructive in return.
Here are some thoughts about fixing the global trading system:
Greater consultation with civil society at the international level is helpful, but representation at the national level is more important - e.g. the USTR's health related advisory committees have 42 members, only one of them is represents a public health organization.
We need a solution that will also fix the WTO's jurisdictional problems. In short, the WTO needs some form of subsidiarity to prevent legitimate national and local policies from being overridden by international trade law.
Key public services with legitimate social objectives should be excluded from WTO rules, using clear language. Because of the current blurred division of sectors in the negotiations, it is easy for a service to be excluded from the negotiations by a government, yet included inadvertantly in another sector that the government has decided to liberalize.
Foreign investors should no longer be accorded greater rights than their domestic counterparts - at the moment, foreign investors can claim compensation for current or future profits lost as a result of changes in government policy. The definition of expropriation in trade law should be slimmed down to prevent this.
Now, does anybody have a magic wand?
Visit Holly's blog TradingLives for more trade posts.
New intelligence reports suggests that Al-Qaeda is growing stronger and regrouping in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Six years after 9/11, after hundreds of billions of dollars spent and two wars, we remain under significant threat from the group that President Bush vowed to "smoke out of their holes." The war in Iraq has no doubt contributed to this increased terrorist activity and threats. Our presence in Iraq has distracted us from the real war on terror, which was in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is where after all Al-Qaeda was based. Our own intelligence has stated that there was no operational link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Furthermore less than 10% of the fighters in Iraq are foreign Al-Qaeda fighters. Our troops are fighting local Iraqi factions, groups unrelated to the broader war on terror.
Why then do some Democrats not paint the Republicans as soft on national security. In 2004 John Kerry lost in part because he was painted as soft and weak on terrorism. John Kerry did little to combat this notion. The Democrats must turn this myth on its head and make national security a central theme to their 2008 presidential campaign. The 2008 Democratic nominee must make it clear that Republicans have made the world more dangerous and have weakened the United States position in the world. Democrats must stand up to Republican attacks by stating clearly that Republicans have made America more vunerable to a terrorist attack. Democrats must not cower from the national security question, but own it.
President Bush says he is against expanding SCHIP-public health insurance for low income kids-because the program is anti-capitalist and restricts choice. Why? Because some parents will switch their kids from private to (usually better) public coverage, and public coverage is socialist. . . So public insurance is anti-choice because it provides low income families with a preferable option?
*This post is in response to Malin von Euler-Hogan's previous article from earlier today*
In essence, the big question is this: did the Founding Fathers, in their call for separation of church and state, intend for 1) any and all religions in the population to be shown and practiced prior to and during stately matters at the statesmen’s discretion (orgy of religion) or 2) lack of religious interference or influence prior to and during stately matters (total absence of religion)?
To answer this question, one has to acknowledge that the Founding Fathers very likely did not even agree on which of these two was best. Likely, there would have been a split. At the time, with America already becoming a mixing pot of races and religions, the inclusion of all religions to guarantee that no one specific church from the course of the state would have been an adequate solution for freedom of religion. However, some Founding Fathers, although supporting the ideal of freedom of religion, likely would have preferred this freedom be practice out of the courtroom and congressional chambers. They might have easily argued that the best way to ensure this freedom would be to keep the church and state completely removed from one-another.
Regardless of the intent of the Founding Fathers, whether it was 1) orgy of religion or 2) total absence of religion in stately matters, (if there was agreement at all) practicality and application are the deciding factors in the end. And at the time of the constitution (and still today) religion was as integral with society as manners. Whether you have manners and to what degree is not something that can magically be removed or abolished from the courtrooms and congressional chambers, but allowed and encouraged outside of them.
The practical approach certainly doesn't involve opening each day with a prayer from every religion imaginable. The best way to preserve freedom of religion is the second option--absence of religion--because otherwise the strongest and most widely practiced religions will have greater influence on the matters of the state. Although this will happen to some degree no matter what--since absolute absence cannot be truly achieved with such an integral institution--efforts need to be continued to reduce it as much as possible.
Liberians in the U.S. Will Soon Face the Threat of Deportation
An article in today’s Washington Post addresses the issue of Liberians living in the United States under TPS (Temporary Protected Status). This status will expire in October, so leaving the many Liberians residing in the U.S. vulnerable to deportation. Although the fighting in Liberia came to an end in 2003, water and electricity are scarce, unemployment is around 85%, the average life expectancy is 39 years, and out of the 3.4 million people in Liberia only 26 are practicing doctors. So although the United States has determined the country to be “stable”, most believe that Liberia remains unsafe. For now, Liberians in the United States are hoping that legislation put forward by Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) will pass; this bill would grant permanent residency to Liberians in the U.S.
Despite continuing controversy over U.S. immigration policy, granting Liberians in the U.S. permanent residency status is consistent with U.S. ideology and is not vulnerable to the same criticisms often put forth in the immigration debate. Liberians living in the U.S. under TPS are here legally, have contributed to society by paying taxes and working, and have built a life here for themselves and often for their children, some of which were born here and are American citizens. Should these people really be forced to return to an unstable and unsafe country? —A country founded by freed slaves and used by the U.S. to operate bases during WWII and the Cold War.
Perhaps what this situation really does is highlight the problems surrounding the TPS designation. Who decides when the country in question is safe enough to return to? How can people in the U.S. under TPS establish a life here if they constantly face possible termination of their TPS? Until a better program is designed, however, the Liberians here under TPS must be allowed to stay.
It is customary for the Senate to begin each of its sessions with an invocation, a prayer asking for guidance in the session. Last Thursday's invocation was a noteworthy one, as it was performed by a Hindu priest for the first time, as opposed to the usual Christian religious leaders (there have been Jewish and Muslim invocations before). I think it is questionable whether any prayer belongs in the Senate at all. Also in objection to the Senate's invocation were three protesters representing Operation Save America. Their concern, however, was slightly different than mine. They interrupted Rajan Zed's invocation, saying, "Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight. This is an abomination. We shall have no other gods before You." The Hindu priest continued and finished the prayer, but this was certainly not the way this historic instance of religious freedom and tolerance should have ideally proceeded. These protesters, and probably many more Americans, believe that prayer and religion belong in the government, but only the correct religion - theirs - of course. This intolerance is upsetting, and I am glad our Founding Fathers had the foresight they did in writing the First Amendment.
As for the appropriateness of an invocation at all, perhaps a diverse representation of religions for the invocations is appropriate and fitting with the American ideal of celebrating our nation's melting pot of a population. But isn't that preferring religion over non-religion? Or would Congress not have a problem with an atheist-led invocation?
Having witnessed the Sara Taylor hearing as a part of the Senate Judiciary committee, some realizations about our government have been reveled to me. What I thought was so interesting about the stance and reasoning Sara Taylor used in going along with Fred Fielding's letter legally putting President Bush's executive privilege in direct opposition to information that congress requested does not make sense to me. She said that she took an oath to the president. Sen. Patrick Leahy the chairman of the Judiciary committee corrected her and said that she took an oath to the Constitution. This to me is a symbol, of how people blindly look at our system of government. We are not looking to the constitution, what we are looking at is the President as the head and the ruler of our government. I am just amazed that people who look at the President (executive branch) for guidance, not paying attention to the underlying fabric (the constitution) that should make us challenge authority. It is our responsibility to look deeper than at just what people tell us to do. I think many people will just do whatever the president says, seeing no fault in the deterioration of our society by his policies and decisions. The irony is that the people of the United States elected the President along with the Congress. The Constitution was designed to provide checks and balances to hold each branch accountable. Sara Taylor denying Congress the information needed interferes and violates the Constitution she vowed to uphold. However, this all being said, it is clear that she is a pawn in a much deeper constitutional struggle between the Congress and the executive branch.
Today's IRIN featured article on Africa discusses the sustainability of pastoralism in the continent. Pastoralism is a way of life based on herding livestock in largely arid or semi-arid land. The lifestyle provides pastoralists with an income, a means of transportation, and involvement in a social network. IRIN reports that pastoralism is practiced over an area that makes up at least 40% of Africa's land mass. In 2005, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization assessed Africa's livestock at a value of $65 billion. Given these numbers, A new approach to pastoralism is necessary, especially in the face of "climate change, shifting global markets and increased competitiion for land and other natural resources" (IRIN). In a conference that took place between July 9th and 11th, representatives of pastoralists from 15 African countries met to discuss the lifestyle's future. This conference is part of a larger plan to create a policy framework for the AU with regard to pastorlalism. With the increasing urbanisation of Africa, there will be increased demand for livestock-- pastoralists need to be able get as much out of their lifestyle/industry as possible without losing out to those factors mentioned earlier, like increased competition for land. A comprehensive policy on pastoralism will help to give pastoralists a voice in national governments, a way to manage environmental and climactic challenges, and also tactics for avoiding conflict.
This effort to preserve pastoralism ensures that traditional ways of life are left in tact even in the wake of development and urbanization. Creating a comprehensive AU policy dealing with pastoralism will make it sustainable in the developing world, and preserving those traditional ways of life is important. Traditional components of society- like pastoralism in Africa- can often even add to the success of a development scheme because including those components demonstrates that the society's values and ways of life are being respected.
Yeah he's cocky, emotional, often annoying and a little chunky, but somebody's got to stick up for Micheal Moore. Every one of his four great documentaries has stood up to, even become more relevant with time. He has a way of giving "radical" political arguments a universal appeal. He's never the first person to say what he says, but he uses his medium to say it better than anybody else. He's mastered the complicated art of film making to convey very simple ideas. When people look back in thirty years to judge his legacy, his movies will be no less effective.
Listen to the radio or turn on MTV and you'll probably here Green Day or Linkin Park trying to recreate the political feel of 60s and 70s art with lazy music that doesnt actually say anything. Personally, I don't think those bands have the sincerity or the fresh genius that led the movement they are obviously inspired by. Certainly they won't have the same legacy.
Is it too far of a stretch to call Micheal Moore the modern day John Lennon?
I just received an email from the staff of the once presidential hopeful, John Kerry. The opening line? "I just came back from the Senate floor, and I have to tell you, I'm pretty steamed." I am too, and have been since the year 2003, when we chose to enter Iraq in the first place. However, I have come to terms with the fact that we are there, which is why I support our troops by doing as much as we can for the people that are risking their lives on a daily basis. It seems that "Supporting the Troops" and the magnetic yellow ribbons that bear that saying don't signify an actual support for the troops themselves, but instead support for a specific war--the Iraq war. The specific incident that inspired this particular circulated email from Senator Kerry was an amendment that sets the maximum amount of time for a soldier to be deployed in Iraq, as well as a minimum amount of time for them to spend at home in the states. Republicans claim to support the troops and continue (for the most part) to support the President's policy in Iraq, and are blocking a vote on this amendment. If they truly support the troops, then doesn't it seem that our troops should be given fair treatment for their service to our country, and should not be exploited and required to serve an extended amount of time away from their friends and families?
Advocacy is Needed for those Suffering from Mental Illness
On July 5th, Human Rights Watch released a letter written to New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer. The letter calls on Governor Spitzer to sign state legislation that would prohibit the solitary confinement of mentally ill inmates in New York State. The text can be found at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/05/usdom16358.htm. The legislation that HRW supports criticizes the New York State prison system's treatment of those with mental illness in the New York State prison system.
This letter highlights a continuing and basically unaddressed issue in the United States- the treatment of those suffering from mental illness. Along with unjust treatment in the prison system, those with mental illness don't receive adequate health care, funding for housing frequently gets challenged, and sufferers are more often than not excluded from society on the whole. The case of those with mental illness must be taken up- sufferers deserve more support than they receive.
Current legislation exists dealing with issues that affect those with mental illness. The New York State bill is one, and constituents of New York should advocate for Spitzer to support the bill. Legislation also exists at the federal level. Senate Bill 558 would provide health care benefits for mental illness that are equivalent to those provided for medical and surgical services; Congress should support this bill. On June 13th, the House passed a bill that helps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, the bill contains language that stigmatizes mental illness, and that language must be corrected. Click here for more information on the bill: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=June7&Template=Content Management ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=473 88. In addition, Congress will consider proposals related to fiscal year 2008 funding for Housing and Urban Development. The first proposal is to cut a program that develops community based housing for those with mental illness and other disabilities. This program has been critical to providing mental illness sufferers with access to housing, and Congress should not support the proposal to cut it.
These four pieces of legislation, one at the New York state level, and three at the Federal level, affect those with mental illness in a very real way. Mental illness sufferers deserve a real voice. Passing the New York bill and Senate Bill 558, correcting stigmatizing language in the House bill dealing with gun control, and not supporting the proposal to cut funding for HUD section 811 dealing with housing, is a step in the right direction, but more advocacy is necessary. To learn more about the discussed bills or about issues facing those with mental illness in general, click here.
The Supreme Court ruling a few months ago, on April 18th, had more dangerous and devastating implications than any of its defenders comprehended. From the justices who signed the majority opinion to the pro-life organizations that praised their decision, the supporters of upholding this ban did know not the grim reality of what had actually occurred. Regardless of what exact minority of women in their third trimester have resorted to this method, the implications of the Supreme Court ruling are unabated. It is true that there are other safe alternatives to the criminalized intact dilation and extraction method (the bill refers to it as "partial birth abortion"). Yet a number of doctors feel most comfortable with this method, and if they cannot use it, will have to perform a method in which they are less accurate and more prone to make life-threatening mistakes. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also added that intact dilation and extraction is the "safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions." These certain conditions "make non-intact D& E especially dangerous." Conditions such as these, which doctors but not politicians and judiciaries can comprehend, are a fine example of why the government should keep itself from entering and ignorantly policing the medical realm. Constitutionally, many argue, Congress cannot regulate medicine unless it is considered interstate commerce. The thought that medicine could be analogous to agriculture— even when using the argument that some tools, patients, and doctors cross state lines—is an illogical stretch. Although vague ideas about medical practices have passed through the Court before, the "partial birth abortion" case is different in character because of its referral to one specific procedure. Congress clearly overstepped their Constitutional powers in this case, and the Supreme Court failed to check it. The Supreme Court disregarded any lower federal court rulings made on the issue, and even threw out the window the 1973 Roe v. Wade result, which required that abortion regulations must allow exceptions in order to protect the health of the woman. Under the upheld ban, a doctor must decided if the woman's life in endanger; if only her health is on the line when he performs the dilation and extraction, the doctor can be sent to jail. This puts extreme unnecessary pressure on doctors, asking them to make sure she is about to die, and if they miscalculate in either direction, they face a killing an innocent patient, or spending time in jail for insuring her safety. The emphasis has switched from being on the well-being woman to the consequences for the fetus, only leaving the woman's death as the last remaining repercussion. Not more comforting that this "rock and a hard place" condition, the reasoning of the majority's written case reveals bigotry by means of sexism. Justice Kennedy claimed that upholding this ban was good for women--it would protect them from something they probably did not fully understand (as though he himself did) and that their actions without the ban would most likely cause them regret after it was too late. It seemed that our society was past the despicable generalizations that women are erratic and in need of protection from men, but not in the mind of dinosaur Justice Kennedy. The majority opinion's chauvinistic implications are enough to alone anger the females of America. Perhaps the worst outcome of this verdict was that it set precedence for future abortion rulings. With help from the appointments made by President Bush, the bench has become more conservative than it has been in decades. The precedence that the "partial birth abortion" decision has set is multifaceted. First, it has changed the way in which abortion is allowed to be discussed by the US government. Rather than speaking in terms of privacy, the debate consisted of small parts of the specific procedure, defining what 'fully informed consent' meant, and whether a fetus feels pain. These abstract, ambiguous topics, not pertaining to law or the constitution, are now legitimate discussions for legislators and judiciaries when debating the controversial topic of abortion. The justices in concurrence with the ruling seemed to say that specific restrictions on abortion are constitutional now, contrary to the past precedence where the Supreme Court has never upheld any prohibition on specific abortion types. This ruling could supply energy in lawmakers and the pro-life advocates that would lead to further restrictions, which under the radical new precedence, could now easily be upheld. A colossal misstep has been taken, which not only undermines the integrity and legitimacy of the current Supreme Court, but also causes innocent practicing doctors and patients varying degrees of anguish, ranging from jail time to the pregnant woman's unnecessary death. Worst of all, it threatens the important 1973 decision that guaranteed America a right to privacy in its reproductive matters, and left the world of medicine in the hands of the medical experts.
As interns for the ADA, we have the experience to attend Senate and House committee hearings. Some of the most important ones that we have had the privilege to attend regard the firings and hirings of U.S. Attorneys. It seems that while those testifying before Congress have had some sort of amnesia, and it's not being overlooked by the general media or satirical publications such as The Onion, which recently wrote a piece titled "Shaking Off Amnesia, Gonzales Remembers He's Actually Pool Salesman From Tulsa". While The Onion and shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report offer some comic relief during this administration's 8 year long period of decisions that seem to lessen our civil liberties instead of allowing them to progress and evolve with the changing times, it is important to remember that these are serious issues with serious consequences. One of today's main headlines from cnn.com is titled "Bush: Former aides won't testify in fired prosecutors case", and if that isn't a blatant move to cover up illegal and politicized issues within this administration, then I don't know what is. It is important for Congress to further investigate these firings of federal prosecutors and further reveal The White House's attempts to politicize in areas such as courtrooms where politics shouldn't matter.
This weekend I saw Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, about which you have no doubt heard a lot. But in case you haven't, it deals with the problems of our country's health care system and discusses some of the history of the issue. I thought Moore did an especially good job of highlighting the differences between our health care systems and those of the UK, France, and Cuba. It is striking how barbaric, selfish, and scary ours seems in comparison. The problem, however, with it is this: how do we get those who need to see it the most to watch it? By spreading the message in this film, we can help educate American citizens enough to elect a candidate who will bring us the health care system we need - one that is universal and single-payer. Here's a trailer for Sicko, in case you haven't seen it.
The ruling on Friday by a military judge declaring that charges be dropped against Canadian Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr, who was fifteen years old when arrested, highlights the fact that a suitable resolution to the criticisms of the Guantanamo Bay detention center has yet to be found. Charges were dropped against Omar Khadr due to the fact that he was not labeled an "unlawful enemy combatant." The problem of properly designating the detainees as a certain type of combatant is where a large part of the controversy over Guantanamo lies.
In an article titled, "Legislation Could be Path to Closing Guantanamo," The New York Times touches on the issue of classifying detainees. If a detainee is determined to be an enemy combatant, he or she can be held at Guantanamo. The military commissions, however, can only try that person if he or she is deemed an "unlawful enemy combatant." The commissions do not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Herein is where the problem lies. The system for determining whether someone is a lawful or unlawful enemy combatant is based in a time of conventional warfare, not in our present day "war on terror" where the status of a combatant will most often be unlawful. "Lawful enemy combatants are, broadly speaking, uniformed soldiers fighting for a government. Unlawful enemy combatants, according to the Military Commissions Act, are everyone else who has engaged in or supported hostilities against the United States, including members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban." To classify all combatants held at Guantanamo as unlawful is to impose a classification system on them that does not apply to the current situation, which is anything but conventional.
There are many issues related to trying those at Guantanamo beyond the simple definition issue of classifying enemy combatants as unlawful or lawful. There is a serious lack of evidence against numerous Guantanamo detainees because many were captured under circumstances that did not allow the appropriate gathering of evidence. This lack of evidence does not necessarily mean that those persons should be released. The New York Times writes, "The most senior administration official to describe the concept publicly is Mr. Gates, who said, 'I think that the biggest challenge is finding a statutory basis for holding prisoners who should never be released and who may or may not be able to be put on trial.'" In addition, controversy exists over who should determine the status of the detainees.
What the myriad issues surrounding the detention center at Guantanamo Bay demonstrate is that this new conflict, centered around terrorism, does not fit into the framework of what our justice system is set up to deal with--conventional war. The present day conflict requires a new framework; the creation of which is no easy task in the face of political, social, and constitutional obstacles. While the specifics of such a framework remain elusive, what is certain is that the public as well as politicians and officials must avoid narrow-mindedness; for instance, the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay is not a viable course of action, but allowing its continued operation without review or modification is similarly unrealistic.
More to come. Please share with us information about websites maintained by ADA members. Drop us a line at dkusler@adaction.org
Welcome to E-Liberal the Blog of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).
We aim to bring you news, action alerts, commentary, guest columns, and much more.
In addition, we will also introduce you to the writings and webpages of ADA members and friends while providing supplemental information previously unavailable.
We hope that you will join us often as we intend to update frequently and that you will spread the word about E-Liberal.
As a transatlantic migrant, I have one foot in the UK and another in the US. That's why I find articles like this one by the Economist so amusing.
Talk of a special relationship started after world war II, when Winston Churchill referred in his Iron Curtain speech of 1946 to a 'fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples', in other words, a 'special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States'. Despite the fact that there is some doubt as to whether the relationship ever existed, many subsequent British political leaders have attempted to maintain strong ties with the US. In the UK, history tends to stick around like that.
