I am loving Delaware senator (Vice President Joe Biden's temporary replacement) Ted Kaufman these days. After his appearance on The Daily Show yesterday, I've been feeling that this is exactly the type of person that should be working in the Senate. He's bright, he's clever, and he has a very clear idea of how Washington was designed and how it works today. But, after a mere two years of filling Joe Biden's empty seat, he's getting out. And I think this is a beautiful example of the old adage that those that seek political power are some of the least deserving of it. At his appearance, he makes a mention of the Founding Father's intentions of both the House and the Senate: The House is a direct voice of the people, with new members every two years, and is much quicker to pass legislation, while the Senate is essentially put in place to stop the majority of this legislation from proceeding. The framer's of the constitution set out to create a deliberative body that slowed or stopped the more fiery and inconsistent influence of the people (the House of Representatives), while still giving people an active role in government legislation.
This reasoning flies in the face of what most people want or expect from Washington. Most politicians claim that they are working to streamline the Congress, to "fix the system", and to allow the people more direct access to the mechanics of government. I really wonder if they truly believe it, or if it's just election strategy designed to drum up some anger from constituents. The most recent development in this line of thinking is the "Tea Party" movement - a group of (mostly) true Washington outsiders running on a platform of a combination of conservative issues, the allure of electing a Washington "outsider", and more and more of this idea that Congress is broken and needs to be fixed. At first, I wondered what this country was coming to. Why would a ridiculous movement like this gain any traction, and what sort of people would be there to support it? But, as I delve deeper into the history of this country, I can see a very real trend of movements similar to (most even more radical than!) the Tea Party. Going all the way back to the beginning, several factions were very (very!) divided on the role that state, local, and federal government should take. The country split up in 1860, which isn't really that long ago. Third parties have gained widespread support at certain points in the last century. The president has claimed more and more power relative to other branches at times, and then the Congress steps up and takes it back. The point I'm getting at is that as crazy as times seem right now, it is all just part of the ebb and flow of our government. And, it's all happened before. Everything bizarre and unsettling that is happening in this current mid-term election has happened before,and will no doubt happen again. We will all just have to put our faith in the fact that Democracy won't stay too far from the equilibrium that keeps everfything in line.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Parallels between the War On Terror/Drugs: According to Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald wrote last week on the issues of both the War On Drugs and the War On Terror. The focus of the linked article was that both "Wars" are loosely defined, extremely expensive, and have led to an erosion of the basic civil liberties guaranteed in the constitution. Greenwald is an unabashed liberal, and his columns are certainly aimed towards like-minded liberals (although I'm sure many libertarians and quite a few conservatives would agree with the assertions of this article as well.)
Eisenhower warned this country against the the rise of the "Military Industrial" complex, meaning that the people that work for and build weapons to assist with war will, obviously, lobby in favor of war. And, given that a few major wars had built up a massive industry for the creation of munitions and other military goods, the investors in this industry had a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and an enormous amount of money with which to lobby politicians to continue using their goods and services. This continual cycle of private business propped up by government funding, Greenwald argues, is the background of a wide assortment of essentially unnecessary wars and unnecessary government programs. He makes the point that more and more, prisons have been privatized, providing financial incentive to increase the number of inmates, and to increase their sentences. The owners (and shareholders) of these prisons are paid per prisoner, per day. It goes without saying that an business built on incarceration will lobby for harsher laws and longer sentences. Greenwald then compares the American prison system with the rest of the world, and shows that we have by far the highest level of incarceration in the world, and American prison inmates account for 25% of all inmates in the world, coming from a country that makes up just 5% of the world's population.
Glenn Greenwald makes an argument for an end of the War On Drugs, and an end to the system that both imprisons these non-violent criminals and props up both the drug cartels and the owners and lobbyists of private prisons.
The issue of drug legalization is complicated. There are countless factors, ranging from moral or religious objection, to the concerns that drug legalization will increase addiction rates. Several countries have altered their drug laws with mixed results, but that is no guarantee that any such measure would work in this country.
I find this opinion article to be mostly reasonable, with the concerns very real. This country should reevaluate any industry or law when a part of it (I.E., the ratio of inmates in our prisons) is out of whack with the rest of the developed world. The article has a slight liberal bias, as expected, and many will disagree with his proposed solutions to this problem, but I would argue that most would agree that the prison system in American is a real problem.
Eisenhower warned this country against the the rise of the "Military Industrial" complex, meaning that the people that work for and build weapons to assist with war will, obviously, lobby in favor of war. And, given that a few major wars had built up a massive industry for the creation of munitions and other military goods, the investors in this industry had a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and an enormous amount of money with which to lobby politicians to continue using their goods and services. This continual cycle of private business propped up by government funding, Greenwald argues, is the background of a wide assortment of essentially unnecessary wars and unnecessary government programs. He makes the point that more and more, prisons have been privatized, providing financial incentive to increase the number of inmates, and to increase their sentences. The owners (and shareholders) of these prisons are paid per prisoner, per day. It goes without saying that an business built on incarceration will lobby for harsher laws and longer sentences. Greenwald then compares the American prison system with the rest of the world, and shows that we have by far the highest level of incarceration in the world, and American prison inmates account for 25% of all inmates in the world, coming from a country that makes up just 5% of the world's population.
Glenn Greenwald makes an argument for an end of the War On Drugs, and an end to the system that both imprisons these non-violent criminals and props up both the drug cartels and the owners and lobbyists of private prisons.
The issue of drug legalization is complicated. There are countless factors, ranging from moral or religious objection, to the concerns that drug legalization will increase addiction rates. Several countries have altered their drug laws with mixed results, but that is no guarantee that any such measure would work in this country.
I find this opinion article to be mostly reasonable, with the concerns very real. This country should reevaluate any industry or law when a part of it (I.E., the ratio of inmates in our prisons) is out of whack with the rest of the developed world. The article has a slight liberal bias, as expected, and many will disagree with his proposed solutions to this problem, but I would argue that most would agree that the prison system in American is a real problem.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Assassination Of A U.S. Citizen?
A week or so back, Ronald Sokol wrote an article regarding the ability of the United States government or military to assassinate a US Citizen living abroad. Really, the article involved the right of the government to assassinate anyone, but in this situation it involves Anwar Al-Awlaki, born on New Mexico, and now living in Yemen as a Muslim lecturer and reported Al-Qaeda recruiter. To begin, Sokol is an American lawyer and author, specializing in constitutional and civil rights law. He is an occasional contributor to the International Herald Tribune and the Christian Science Monitor opinion sections.
The argument Sokol draws upon to illustrate his opinion is something he calls the Nuremberg standard. He outlines the post WWII trials of German and Japanese officers, and how the United States government insisted on a proper trial for those accused, while the Soviet and British leaders would just as soon executed Nazi leaders on sight. The idea at the time was that the rule of law should override any other motivation, and that the principles set out in the U.S. Constitution should be extended to any and everyone, regardless of their alleged crimes or affiliation.
Sokol points out that this standard set 65 years ago has been difficult to abide by, especially by the American government. There were many assassination attempts through the 60s and 70s, and only in 1976 did President Ford specifically outlaw government assassination. This lasted until 2002, when President Bush allowed assassinations of "high level terrorists".
As a civil and constitutional rights lawyer, Ronald Sokol is very much in favor of due process for Anwar Al-Awlaki, and entirely opposed to any assassination attempt. He makes the argument that without proper judicial oversight, the branch of government that authorizes the killing operates without any checks or balances, and effectively disregards the intentions of the constitution. He makes a note that, of course, there are times when killing is necessary for our national defense, and that not every enemy combatant will be allowed full due process of the courts. But, in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, the threat posed to our national security is not so dire as to allow an execution without a proper trial.
Ronald Sokol is a very credible author on the subject of constitutional law, and I find his arguments in this case to be quite appropriate. Assassination as a form of justice is a very slippery slope, and there is a reason that many leaders have outlawed it in the past. The "rule of law" is mentioned as something to strive for, but something that is not easy to follow. In our history, we have strayed from the constitutional outlines of the "rule of law", but I have to agree with Sokol in saying that in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, there are no grounds allowing an assassination.
The argument Sokol draws upon to illustrate his opinion is something he calls the Nuremberg standard. He outlines the post WWII trials of German and Japanese officers, and how the United States government insisted on a proper trial for those accused, while the Soviet and British leaders would just as soon executed Nazi leaders on sight. The idea at the time was that the rule of law should override any other motivation, and that the principles set out in the U.S. Constitution should be extended to any and everyone, regardless of their alleged crimes or affiliation.
Sokol points out that this standard set 65 years ago has been difficult to abide by, especially by the American government. There were many assassination attempts through the 60s and 70s, and only in 1976 did President Ford specifically outlaw government assassination. This lasted until 2002, when President Bush allowed assassinations of "high level terrorists".
As a civil and constitutional rights lawyer, Ronald Sokol is very much in favor of due process for Anwar Al-Awlaki, and entirely opposed to any assassination attempt. He makes the argument that without proper judicial oversight, the branch of government that authorizes the killing operates without any checks or balances, and effectively disregards the intentions of the constitution. He makes a note that, of course, there are times when killing is necessary for our national defense, and that not every enemy combatant will be allowed full due process of the courts. But, in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, the threat posed to our national security is not so dire as to allow an execution without a proper trial.
Ronald Sokol is a very credible author on the subject of constitutional law, and I find his arguments in this case to be quite appropriate. Assassination as a form of justice is a very slippery slope, and there is a reason that many leaders have outlawed it in the past. The "rule of law" is mentioned as something to strive for, but something that is not easy to follow. In our history, we have strayed from the constitutional outlines of the "rule of law", but I have to agree with Sokol in saying that in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, there are no grounds allowing an assassination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)