The Americans have their Prince Charming, and, who knows, ours might be just around the corner. All the buzz here in Canada is over the rising popularity of Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, especially with the release of his new book, "True Patriot Love" (See for one review). Even our conservative leaning national newspaper, The National Post, seems to be warming up to Michael. Not only is Mr. Ignatieff a suave and sophisticated ivy league type, but he is apparently good buddies with the White House crowd cut from the same cloth.
All of this popularity is not surprising. Electorates love to be charmed by charismatic personalities. Those who bring sex appeal to the office, have a twinkle in their eye, can croon a tune, or dance a jig, certainly have a major advantage over the boring and bland. Poor old Joe Clark, Stephane Dion, or Robert Stanfield, never really had much of a chance to win in the political seduction game. But when Pierre Elliott Trudeau winked the populace swooned, even if the twinkle was accompanied by a naughty finger gesture. And how about President Bill Clinton! Here's a President who was tried for impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, who had inappropriate sexual encounters with a young female intern, and who was suspended from the practice of law, but who is still revered by millions as a great President. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, he is still so admired that there are many who will pay hundreds of dollars to hear President Clinton whisper sweet nothings in their ears. Compare that treatment with that accorded to poor Richard Nixon, who avoided impeachment by resigning, and who disappeared from public sight. Now you may say that this had nothing to do with Clinton's charisma, and Nixon's clear lack of it, but on that point I would respectfully disagree.
As I predicted in an earlier posting, Michael Ignatieff will be our next Prime Minister. Canadians will have our own Prince Charming.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Scott Matheson On The Torture Memos
Torture and Moral Duty
Seven years ago, the C.I.A. requested a series of memoranda from the
Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. It is the O.L.C.'s job to provide legal advice to the executive branch, and in this case the authors, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, worked in concert with several other top lawyers, including John Yoo, William Haynes, and David Addington. Bybee is now a Justice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and Yoo is Professor of Law at Boalt Hall, Berkeley. Last Thursday morning, the Obama administration released four of the memos, each stamped "Top Secret," along with a statement from the President promising that no one would be prosecuted for any of the actions described.
Each memo is a detailed analysis of the meaning of "suffering" and "torture" in law. They discuss the treatment already given to specifically named prisoners, like Abu Zubaydah, and plans for future abuse. The first memo has a brief menu of the forms of abuse to be sanctioned, including "Walling," "Stress Positions," "Sleep Deprivation," "Insects Placed in Confinement Box," and "the Waterboard." Most of these are exactly what you'd think. Sleep deprivation lasts "up to eleven days." Walling means slamming a prisoner face first into a wall with a plastic collar to prevent evidence of the torturers hands. The waterboard is another word for what used to be called Water Torture. The Red Cross calls it "suffocation by water" in their confidential 2007 report about C.I.A. interrogation, but it's the same thing. (“Simulated drowning” is an evasive misnomer. That is like saying that prolonged choking is “simulated asphyxiation”. It is actual drowning, as many who have been waterboarded, like Christopher Hitchens have noted, and it shops just short of your death from suffocation.) One CIA prisoner was waterboarded eighty-three times
in a month, another one hundred and eighty three.
Placing insects inside a coffin-sized box is pretty chilling. Near the end Nineteen Eighty-Four, O'Brien puts a cage on Winston's head full of rabid rats behind a small gate. This is effectively what the United States did to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. It takes a special sophistry to argue that these "techniques" are not torture. I would call that sophistry “counseling an offence”, but I’ll get to that later. (I hesitate to even call them “techniques.” This Orwellian euphemism, which is common even in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the international press, is
probably used because calling someone a torturer would be a defamatory
implication of a specific crime.) Justice Antonin Scalia was similarily weasely in a
This reading would have been news to Jefferson, Madison, and Adams, who all loathed torture and thought their Constitution outlawed it. George Washington famously prohibited torture during the Revolutionary War, even though the English were doing it. He wrote in a charge to the forces under his command in 1775, “"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
As Jane Mayer noted in her book "The Dark Side," many of the tortures used by the CIA were adapted from resistance training given to U.S. servicemen, which was in turn based upon the methods of Soviet, Chinese, and North Vietnamese forces during the Cold War. Psychologists hired on contract by the Department of Defense copied wholesale the tortures of some of the twentieth century’s most despotic regimes and gave them euphemistic psychological names, like “fear up harsh.” The tortures were used first by the CIA in its black sites, then at Guantanamo Bay, and then, when Gen. Geoffrey Miller became commandant of Abu Ghraib, the tortures were introduced into Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and VP Cheney explicitly authorized this dissemination. You can read all about this in the http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf”>Senate Armed Services Committee’s report (Chaired by Carl Levin, Ranking Member John McCain). The United States successfully prosecuted Japanese military officials for some of these acts, including waterboarding, after the Second World War (See, e.g.
Drop", Judge Evan Wallach, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,
Vol. 45, No. 2).
All the documents have lengthy footnotes and interesting redactions.
An example footnote: "The detainee's hands are manacled together and the arms placed in an outstretched position-- either extended beyond the head or extended to either side of the body-- and anchored to a far point on the floor in such a manner that the arms cannot be bent or used for balance or comfort. At the same time, the ankles are shackled together and the legs are extended in a straight line with the body and also anchored to a far point on the floor in such a manner than the legs cannot be bent or used for balance or comfort." One of the redactors made a mistake, and neglected to cover a name in a short footnote describing an interrogation. The name was Hassan Ghul, a 'ghost detainee' whose whereabouts are unknown since his capture by the U.S. in 2004. The Red Cross did not interview him, and the C.I.A. refuses to comment on his whereabouts.
The mention of his name in the memo is one of the only signs that he was still alive in 2005.
These memos complement others written by John Yoo advising the
Department of Defense about their liability under the Geneva Conventions. Yoo concluded that the President's power as Commander in Chief rendered any breaches of the Conventions lawful. Likewise the numerous provisions of the U.S. Code that prohibit torture (including
crime liability.) This kind of reading of the law
reminiscent of the Nazi legal philosopher Carl Schmitt.
I’d briefly note that Mayer broke all this more than three years ago, in a series of New Yorker articles culminating in her book. Anytime you hear someone say “disclosing these techniques makes America less safe” be sure to tell them that the book’s been available on Amazon for two years.
What can be done about this? Well, there are plenty of laws against torture: U.S. criminal and civil laws, ratified international conventions, and foreign criminal laws of extraterritorial application. Those who ordered the tortures should be brought to justice. If some of them, like VP Cheney, wish to plead necessity, they can try. When men of honor break the law in service of what they think is the greater good, they should be willing to take the punishment they knew was theirs. Good luck to them: the law states,
and they well knew, that necessity is not a defence to any of the laws
against torture. And it isn’t just the higher-ups that should be prosecuted. In Nuremburg, we established the principle that “just following orders” is no defence, and that principle was specifically written into the torture laws. Emergency and state of war are no defence, either.
Ultimately, President Obama is responsible for administering justice. If he thinks that the authors and interrogators acted within the law, he should pardon them and face the political consequences. Right now the country has given up on the rule of law. There is no incentive for anyone in government to act lawfully. Want to wiretap without a FISA warrant, even though the court has granted more than 99% of requests? Go ahead! There will be no penalty. Congress will rewrite the law to make your actions retroactively legal. Want to torture prisoners? Have fun! We will decline to prosecute, even though we’re legally bound to do so by the CAT. To make it crystal clear to Professor Klar: if Obama does not prosecute the torturers, he will lose my support.
So what else can we do?
Four of the authors are under preliminary indictment for torture in
Spain, but a formal charge is unlikely:
We should prosecute the torturers under Canadian law. Canadian Crown Prosecutors and Ministers of Justice have a duty to uphold the Criminal Code. These memos describe in minute detail exactly the sort of conduct prohibited by s. 269.1 (not to mention enactments of various international conventions.) Section 269.1 of the Code allows for prosecution of foreign officials, peace officers, or armed forces personnel for torture, which the statute defines as, "any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person." The defences for the crime are sharply limited. It is no defence, for example, "that the accused was ordered by a superior or a public authority to perform the act or omission that forms the subject-matter of the charge or that the act or omission is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency." The Code also provides that: notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence against, a conspiracy or an attempt to commit an offence against, being an accessory after the fact in relation to an offence against, or any counselling in relation to an offence against, section 269.1 shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if… (e) the person who commits the act or omission is, after the commission thereof, present in Canada.
The memos are documentary evidence verifying the oral testimony of
detainees to the ICRC and the officials quoted by Mayer. Taken together with the Yoo memos and the Senate Armed Services Committee Report, this evidence is sufficient to ground a charge under the Code.
Read the ICRC report and the Bybee memo and decide for yourself. They
are a very difficult read. Like the black maps of an old evil. It's hard not to be sick reading them, not only because of the inhuman conditions they describe, but because the authors are free, powerful men. No one has been punished, and unless we do something, no one will.
Mr. Matheson is a law student in the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta
Seven years ago, the C.I.A. requested a series of memoranda from the
Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. It is the O.L.C.'s job to provide legal advice to the executive branch, and in this case the authors, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, worked in concert with several other top lawyers, including John Yoo, William Haynes, and David Addington. Bybee is now a Justice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and Yoo is Professor of Law at Boalt Hall, Berkeley. Last Thursday morning, the Obama administration released four of the memos, each stamped "Top Secret," along with a statement from the President promising that no one would be prosecuted for any of the actions described.
Each memo is a detailed analysis of the meaning of "suffering" and "torture" in law. They discuss the treatment already given to specifically named prisoners, like Abu Zubaydah, and plans for future abuse. The first memo has a brief menu of the forms of abuse to be sanctioned, including "Walling," "Stress Positions," "Sleep Deprivation," "Insects Placed in Confinement Box," and "the Waterboard." Most of these are exactly what you'd think. Sleep deprivation lasts "up to eleven days." Walling means slamming a prisoner face first into a wall with a plastic collar to prevent evidence of the torturers hands. The waterboard is another word for what used to be called Water Torture. The Red Cross calls it "suffocation by water" in their confidential 2007 report about C.I.A. interrogation, but it's the same thing. (“Simulated drowning” is an evasive misnomer. That is like saying that prolonged choking is “simulated asphyxiation”. It is actual drowning, as many who have been waterboarded, like Christopher Hitchens have noted, and it shops just short of your death from suffocation.) One CIA prisoner was waterboarded eighty-three times
in a month, another one hundred and eighty three.
Placing insects inside a coffin-sized box is pretty chilling. Near the end Nineteen Eighty-Four, O'Brien puts a cage on Winston's head full of rabid rats behind a small gate. This is effectively what the United States did to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. It takes a special sophistry to argue that these "techniques" are not torture. I would call that sophistry “counseling an offence”, but I’ll get to that later. (I hesitate to even call them “techniques.” This Orwellian euphemism, which is common even in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the international press, is
probably used because calling someone a torturer would be a defamatory
implication of a specific crime.) Justice Antonin Scalia was similarily weasely in a
This reading would have been news to Jefferson, Madison, and Adams, who all loathed torture and thought their Constitution outlawed it. George Washington famously prohibited torture during the Revolutionary War, even though the English were doing it. He wrote in a charge to the forces under his command in 1775, “"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
As Jane Mayer noted in her book "The Dark Side," many of the tortures used by the CIA were adapted from resistance training given to U.S. servicemen, which was in turn based upon the methods of Soviet, Chinese, and North Vietnamese forces during the Cold War. Psychologists hired on contract by the Department of Defense copied wholesale the tortures of some of the twentieth century’s most despotic regimes and gave them euphemistic psychological names, like “fear up harsh.” The tortures were used first by the CIA in its black sites, then at Guantanamo Bay, and then, when Gen. Geoffrey Miller became commandant of Abu Ghraib, the tortures were introduced into Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and VP Cheney explicitly authorized this dissemination. You can read all about this in the http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf”>Senate Armed Services Committee’s report (Chaired by Carl Levin, Ranking Member John McCain). The United States successfully prosecuted Japanese military officials for some of these acts, including waterboarding, after the Second World War (See, e.g.
Drop", Judge Evan Wallach, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,
Vol. 45, No. 2).
All the documents have lengthy footnotes and interesting redactions.
An example footnote: "The detainee's hands are manacled together and the arms placed in an outstretched position-- either extended beyond the head or extended to either side of the body-- and anchored to a far point on the floor in such a manner that the arms cannot be bent or used for balance or comfort. At the same time, the ankles are shackled together and the legs are extended in a straight line with the body and also anchored to a far point on the floor in such a manner than the legs cannot be bent or used for balance or comfort." One of the redactors made a mistake, and neglected to cover a name in a short footnote describing an interrogation. The name was Hassan Ghul, a 'ghost detainee' whose whereabouts are unknown since his capture by the U.S. in 2004. The Red Cross did not interview him, and the C.I.A. refuses to comment on his whereabouts.
The mention of his name in the memo is one of the only signs that he was still alive in 2005.
These memos complement others written by John Yoo advising the
Department of Defense about their liability under the Geneva Conventions. Yoo concluded that the President's power as Commander in Chief rendered any breaches of the Conventions lawful. Likewise the numerous provisions of the U.S. Code that prohibit torture (including
crime liability.) This kind of reading of the law
reminiscent of the Nazi legal philosopher Carl Schmitt.
I’d briefly note that Mayer broke all this more than three years ago, in a series of New Yorker articles culminating in her book. Anytime you hear someone say “disclosing these techniques makes America less safe” be sure to tell them that the book’s been available on Amazon for two years.
What can be done about this? Well, there are plenty of laws against torture: U.S. criminal and civil laws, ratified international conventions, and foreign criminal laws of extraterritorial application. Those who ordered the tortures should be brought to justice. If some of them, like VP Cheney, wish to plead necessity, they can try. When men of honor break the law in service of what they think is the greater good, they should be willing to take the punishment they knew was theirs. Good luck to them: the law states,
and they well knew, that necessity is not a defence to any of the laws
against torture. And it isn’t just the higher-ups that should be prosecuted. In Nuremburg, we established the principle that “just following orders” is no defence, and that principle was specifically written into the torture laws. Emergency and state of war are no defence, either.
Ultimately, President Obama is responsible for administering justice. If he thinks that the authors and interrogators acted within the law, he should pardon them and face the political consequences. Right now the country has given up on the rule of law. There is no incentive for anyone in government to act lawfully. Want to wiretap without a FISA warrant, even though the court has granted more than 99% of requests? Go ahead! There will be no penalty. Congress will rewrite the law to make your actions retroactively legal. Want to torture prisoners? Have fun! We will decline to prosecute, even though we’re legally bound to do so by the CAT. To make it crystal clear to Professor Klar: if Obama does not prosecute the torturers, he will lose my support.
So what else can we do?
Four of the authors are under preliminary indictment for torture in
Spain, but a formal charge is unlikely:
We should prosecute the torturers under Canadian law. Canadian Crown Prosecutors and Ministers of Justice have a duty to uphold the Criminal Code. These memos describe in minute detail exactly the sort of conduct prohibited by s. 269.1 (not to mention enactments of various international conventions.) Section 269.1 of the Code allows for prosecution of foreign officials, peace officers, or armed forces personnel for torture, which the statute defines as, "any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person." The defences for the crime are sharply limited. It is no defence, for example, "that the accused was ordered by a superior or a public authority to perform the act or omission that forms the subject-matter of the charge or that the act or omission is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency." The Code also provides that: notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence against, a conspiracy or an attempt to commit an offence against, being an accessory after the fact in relation to an offence against, or any counselling in relation to an offence against, section 269.1 shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if… (e) the person who commits the act or omission is, after the commission thereof, present in Canada.
The memos are documentary evidence verifying the oral testimony of
detainees to the ICRC and the officials quoted by Mayer. Taken together with the Yoo memos and the Senate Armed Services Committee Report, this evidence is sufficient to ground a charge under the Code.
Read the ICRC report and the Bybee memo and decide for yourself. They
are a very difficult read. Like the black maps of an old evil. It's hard not to be sick reading them, not only because of the inhuman conditions they describe, but because the authors are free, powerful men. No one has been punished, and unless we do something, no one will.
Mr. Matheson is a law student in the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Uncivil State of the Union
During a recent trip to Phoenix, I listened to a lot of what President Obama has called the "cable chatter". I was struck by how deeply divided the country now seems to be, if this chatter is indicative of what is happening down on Main Street, U.S.A. The place seems to to be in a state of uncivil war.
Three issues in particular have riled up the folks, and pitted "conservatives" against "liberals". The rhetoric on both sides is heated and angry.
First was the fuss over the release of the so-called "torture memos" and the ensuing debate over whether some in the Bush administration who were responsible for the approval of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "torture" (you choose your term) should be prosecuted. Some of those on the right are outraged that these memos were released at all in the first place, and are even more incensed that there is now talk of prosecution. Even moderate conservatives like Ed Rollins, who is opposed to the interrogation tactics, think that releasing the memos and prosecuting anyone involved would be a huge mistake. More outspoken right wingers, like Bill O'Reilly or Hannity, think that the release of the memos has endangered U.S. security, and that conducting "show trials" would invite a new major terrorist attack.
These folks do not pull any punches in their condemnation of the Obama administration. According to them, if another attack occurs it will be President Obama's fault and the effective end of his presidency. There is debate whether the interrogation techniques worked to prevent any attacks, with some certain that they did, others that they did not, while others asserting that even if they did work it would not justify their use. Human rights advocates want to see prosecutions, although there is debate about whether these would be successful. Add to this mix calls for a the creation of a "truth" commission, and the impeachment of a now sitting Federal judge who authored one of the memos, and we have a real messy situation. President Obama seems uncertain about what exactly he should do, arguing that the country should be looking forward and not backwards, but that prosecutions are still possible. This is a huge test for his presidency. (My prediction is that there will be no prosecutions and no commissions, but this debate will go on until the two sides to it have milked the issue dry.)
Then there were the tax revolt "tea parties" of April 15. This was fairly big news in the USA, but interestingly the debate was not about taxes. It was about who organized these tax revolt get togethers, who was behind them, and how the media covered them. The tea parties were seen by the liberal crowd as a Fox network staged event, attended by a group of anti-government, anti-CNN, fringe group, secessionists, racists, right-wingers, etc. (See eg http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/17/oreilly_brags_about_tea_party_ratings_discards_journalistic_integrity.php) Fox News saw those who were critical of the tea parties as "uber-liberals", the committed left wing press, and the "haters at NBC" etc. O'Reilly crowed that Fox News beat the living daylights out of these other networks in terms of ratings. And so on it went. O'Reilly openly declared that there was a civil war going on in the media. My point here is not to analyze these tea parties or the assertions made about them. What is of note is the anger and mutual distrust that exists in the media and presumably the country in an ever deepening cultural and political divide.
Then there is the controversy over President Obama's interactions with enemies of the USA. Should he have so warmly greeted Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad or not? Did he weaken the US and give Chavez a huge boost? Should he not have spoken out against him at some point? (See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/20/concerns-brewing-obamas-warm-embrace-chavez/). Was he just being polite and statesmen-like? And how about the fact that he sat through a 50 minute anti-US rant by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega without nary a response? (See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/obama-endures-ortega-diatribe/). The two sides are battling this one out as well.
Of course, there will always be conflict between left and right in the US, especially in view of how polarized the nation is on fundamental issues and values. What is striking about the current situation, however, is the fact that the US has a President who effectively wants to be seen as governing, not by building upon the strengths and accomplishments of his predecessor, but by being the anti-predecessor. Every day the US and the world is reminded by the current administration that there is major repair work to be done due to the disasters of the Bush years. Whether it is about the economy, the US military interventions, or the reputation of the USA in the world, the President and his team make it abundantly clear that they have their challenges due to the havoc of the Bush years. Secretary of State Clinton openly mocks Vice President Cheney in a public committee hearing. (See http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/22/hillary-clinton-takes-on-cheney/). Vice President Biden mocks President Bush and his lack of leadership. (See http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/04/10/biden_says_bush_didnt_lead_rove_says_vp_lies/).
When one administration makes it its full time job to humiliate and denigrate the previous administration, there will be the inevitable push back. Although President Obama talks about looking ahead and not dwelling on the past, read his lips. It is time for this to stop, because all it is doing is heating up an already badly divided country.
Three issues in particular have riled up the folks, and pitted "conservatives" against "liberals". The rhetoric on both sides is heated and angry.
First was the fuss over the release of the so-called "torture memos" and the ensuing debate over whether some in the Bush administration who were responsible for the approval of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "torture" (you choose your term) should be prosecuted. Some of those on the right are outraged that these memos were released at all in the first place, and are even more incensed that there is now talk of prosecution. Even moderate conservatives like Ed Rollins, who is opposed to the interrogation tactics, think that releasing the memos and prosecuting anyone involved would be a huge mistake. More outspoken right wingers, like Bill O'Reilly or Hannity, think that the release of the memos has endangered U.S. security, and that conducting "show trials" would invite a new major terrorist attack.
These folks do not pull any punches in their condemnation of the Obama administration. According to them, if another attack occurs it will be President Obama's fault and the effective end of his presidency. There is debate whether the interrogation techniques worked to prevent any attacks, with some certain that they did, others that they did not, while others asserting that even if they did work it would not justify their use. Human rights advocates want to see prosecutions, although there is debate about whether these would be successful. Add to this mix calls for a the creation of a "truth" commission, and the impeachment of a now sitting Federal judge who authored one of the memos, and we have a real messy situation. President Obama seems uncertain about what exactly he should do, arguing that the country should be looking forward and not backwards, but that prosecutions are still possible. This is a huge test for his presidency. (My prediction is that there will be no prosecutions and no commissions, but this debate will go on until the two sides to it have milked the issue dry.)
Then there were the tax revolt "tea parties" of April 15. This was fairly big news in the USA, but interestingly the debate was not about taxes. It was about who organized these tax revolt get togethers, who was behind them, and how the media covered them. The tea parties were seen by the liberal crowd as a Fox network staged event, attended by a group of anti-government, anti-CNN, fringe group, secessionists, racists, right-wingers, etc. (See eg http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/17/oreilly_brags_about_tea_party_ratings_discards_journalistic_integrity.php) Fox News saw those who were critical of the tea parties as "uber-liberals", the committed left wing press, and the "haters at NBC" etc. O'Reilly crowed that Fox News beat the living daylights out of these other networks in terms of ratings. And so on it went. O'Reilly openly declared that there was a civil war going on in the media. My point here is not to analyze these tea parties or the assertions made about them. What is of note is the anger and mutual distrust that exists in the media and presumably the country in an ever deepening cultural and political divide.
Then there is the controversy over President Obama's interactions with enemies of the USA. Should he have so warmly greeted Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad or not? Did he weaken the US and give Chavez a huge boost? Should he not have spoken out against him at some point? (See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/20/concerns-brewing-obamas-warm-embrace-chavez/). Was he just being polite and statesmen-like? And how about the fact that he sat through a 50 minute anti-US rant by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega without nary a response? (See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/obama-endures-ortega-diatribe/). The two sides are battling this one out as well.
Of course, there will always be conflict between left and right in the US, especially in view of how polarized the nation is on fundamental issues and values. What is striking about the current situation, however, is the fact that the US has a President who effectively wants to be seen as governing, not by building upon the strengths and accomplishments of his predecessor, but by being the anti-predecessor. Every day the US and the world is reminded by the current administration that there is major repair work to be done due to the disasters of the Bush years. Whether it is about the economy, the US military interventions, or the reputation of the USA in the world, the President and his team make it abundantly clear that they have their challenges due to the havoc of the Bush years. Secretary of State Clinton openly mocks Vice President Cheney in a public committee hearing. (See http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/22/hillary-clinton-takes-on-cheney/). Vice President Biden mocks President Bush and his lack of leadership. (See http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/04/10/biden_says_bush_didnt_lead_rove_says_vp_lies/).
When one administration makes it its full time job to humiliate and denigrate the previous administration, there will be the inevitable push back. Although President Obama talks about looking ahead and not dwelling on the past, read his lips. It is time for this to stop, because all it is doing is heating up an already badly divided country.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Good Decision President Obama!
President Obama's decision to boycott the "Durban 2" conference is to be applauded. Although it was unclear right up to the deadline whether the US would attend, I believe that was the right and courageous decision for the US to take. This becomes even more clear after we witnessed the spectacle of Ahmadenijad spewing hatred and vile slanders today, amid some delegates leaving and others cheering. Free speech allows even despicable tyrants to speak, but it does not require anyone to listen.
I cannot help but wonder, however, how supporters of Obama, and his message of change, dialogue even with one's enemies, and a greater US engagement with the world, will judge this decision? In your opinion, was this decision consistent with Obama's message? Was it the right decision for him to have taken?
I cannot help but wonder, however, how supporters of Obama, and his message of change, dialogue even with one's enemies, and a greater US engagement with the world, will judge this decision? In your opinion, was this decision consistent with Obama's message? Was it the right decision for him to have taken?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Susan Boyle: A Star is Born
If you have not yet heard of Susan Boyle, watch this video. I was blown away, and you will be too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Remembering Irena Sendler
A few days ago, a friend told me the remarkable story of Irena Sendler. Perhaps some of you know of it, although I did not. It's a story worth telling and retelling. With Holocaust Remembrance Day only a few days away (April 21, 2009), and as we approach the first anniversary of Irena's passing on May 12, 2008, I would like to remember Irena by telling you her story. I am indebted to the story of "Irena's Children" written by Gavriel Horan which you can find at http://richards-creations.net/Pages/8/_Irena-s_Children.html, as well as other sources, for the details which I am providing here. I will be brief and encourage you to read these accounts for yourselves. There are several internet sites which you will find useful.
Irena was born in Poland in 1910. She was a Catholic woman who along with a small group of 25 other courageous people, saved 2500 Jewish children from the Nazis by smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto shortly before it was liquidated. They accomplished this amazing feat by hiding the children inside "sacks, boxes, body bags, or coffins". They took them out of the Ghetto and brought them to safety at the homes of brave families who were prepared to shelter them. They took them out through "sewers or underground tunnels or taken through an old courthouse or church next to the Ghetto". They did all of this and more at an incredible risk to their lives.
Not only did Irena save the lives of these children, but as Gavriel Horan notes, she did not want them to disappear from the Jewish people. Thus the names and new identities of the rescued children were written down on pieces of paper and the lists hidden in glass jars. In this way, the children could, as much as possible, be reunited with their families after the war. The play "Life in A Jar" was written as tribute to Irena Sendler and explains to some extent her story and how it has come to light. See http://www.irenasendler.org/.
Irena was arrested, imprisoned and tortured by the Gestapo in 1943. She suffered life long injuries. She was sentenced to death but escaped with the help of a bribed guard. She survived the war and lived in relative obscurity in Poland working as a social worker. Interestingly it was a class of students from a rural Kansas school who popularized her story in 1999, found that she was still alive living in Poland, and word of this woman spread world wide. It was these students who wrote the play "Life In A Jar".
Irena has been remembered in various ways since her courage came to light. She was honoured in 1965 as a Righteous Gentile by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial and travelled to Israel in 1983 to receive her decoration in person. She received Poland's highest distinction, the Order of White Eagle, in 2003. She was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The prize went to Al Gore for his narration of the film on Global Warming. She died the next year at the age of 98.
Every so often we learn of the existence of a person like Irena Sendler. We wish we could be a person more like her. We doubt that we would have her courage and conviction. Yet the fact that there are Irena Sendlers gives us faith in humanity. It sets a a goal towards which we should at least all strive.
Irena was born in Poland in 1910. She was a Catholic woman who along with a small group of 25 other courageous people, saved 2500 Jewish children from the Nazis by smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto shortly before it was liquidated. They accomplished this amazing feat by hiding the children inside "sacks, boxes, body bags, or coffins". They took them out of the Ghetto and brought them to safety at the homes of brave families who were prepared to shelter them. They took them out through "sewers or underground tunnels or taken through an old courthouse or church next to the Ghetto". They did all of this and more at an incredible risk to their lives.
Not only did Irena save the lives of these children, but as Gavriel Horan notes, she did not want them to disappear from the Jewish people. Thus the names and new identities of the rescued children were written down on pieces of paper and the lists hidden in glass jars. In this way, the children could, as much as possible, be reunited with their families after the war. The play "Life in A Jar" was written as tribute to Irena Sendler and explains to some extent her story and how it has come to light. See http://www.irenasendler.org/.
Irena was arrested, imprisoned and tortured by the Gestapo in 1943. She suffered life long injuries. She was sentenced to death but escaped with the help of a bribed guard. She survived the war and lived in relative obscurity in Poland working as a social worker. Interestingly it was a class of students from a rural Kansas school who popularized her story in 1999, found that she was still alive living in Poland, and word of this woman spread world wide. It was these students who wrote the play "Life In A Jar".
Irena has been remembered in various ways since her courage came to light. She was honoured in 1965 as a Righteous Gentile by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial and travelled to Israel in 1983 to receive her decoration in person. She received Poland's highest distinction, the Order of White Eagle, in 2003. She was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The prize went to Al Gore for his narration of the film on Global Warming. She died the next year at the age of 98.
Every so often we learn of the existence of a person like Irena Sendler. We wish we could be a person more like her. We doubt that we would have her courage and conviction. Yet the fact that there are Irena Sendlers gives us faith in humanity. It sets a a goal towards which we should at least all strive.
No Balance and Perspective? Maybe.
I have been criticized for being too one sided (negative) in my postings on Obama. I plead guilty. My excuses, Your Honour, are the following. First, the positives are amply taken care of by the media and the acolytes, so there is no need for me to go there. Second, I read articles such as the following.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21207.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21207.html
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Comment Policy
Ivory Tower Pundit invites all serious comments, whether critical or not.
Comments which contain offensive material will not be published. This includes all comments which are signed with offensive monikers, no matter how serious or informative the comment may be.
Those who have submitted such comments are invited to remove the offensive material and resubmit.
Thanks.
Comments which contain offensive material will not be published. This includes all comments which are signed with offensive monikers, no matter how serious or informative the comment may be.
Those who have submitted such comments are invited to remove the offensive material and resubmit.
Thanks.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Want To See "American Idol"
I guess I am not the only fan of "American Idol". I took a lot of abuse from some readers for complaining about the show being put off a day so Americans could listen to their President. The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, also apparently likes Idol, or at least thinks her donors do. If you drop Hillary a donation to help her pay off her campaign debts, you can win tickets to the finale of Idol.
So send in your money and GOOD LUCK!!
So send in your money and GOOD LUCK!!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
What Would George Bush Have Said?
President Obama's approach to foreign affairs has given the Ivory Tower Pundit much to think about over the past week.
Perhaps I will start off with the following question: What would George Bush have said about the proposed law in Afghanistan which would have required women to submit to having sex with their husbands on their demand, or to require their husbands' permission to leave the house?
Normally one government will refrain from interfering in the internal domestic affairs of another country. This is generally a legitimate approach. It is not up to people who live in one country to preach or lecture to the people of another country. Conventions, cultures and values differ from country to country and democratically elected governments are ordinarily answerable only to those persons who put them into office.
When internal domestic matters, however, give rise to breaches of international law, or raise human rights concerns, other countries do not have to remain indifferent or silent. This is particularly so when the country that is abusing the human rights of its citizens, or is flouting international law, is being supported, either financially or militarily, by other countries.
Kudos therefore to the Stephen Harper government for its firm and uncompromising stand on the proposed Afghanistan law referred to above. Canadians are fighting and dying in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and to improve the condition of Afghanis. It was therefore entirely appropriate and laudable for Prime Minister Harper, and other Canadian parliamentarians, to publicly condemn the proposed law. The Prime Minister made it clear that "making progress on human rights for women is a significant component of the international engagement in Afghanistan." Canadians from both sides of the political spectrum called on President Karzai "to make sure Afghanistan lives up to its international treaty obligations for human rights, especially human rights for women." Prime Minister Harper showed yet again that when it comes to foreign affairs, he is prepared to stand up for what the Canadian government believes in, even if sometimes Canada has to stand alone.
Now let me turn to the public position of the American government on this issue. As far as I can tell, President Obama's limited position was that although the law was "abhorrent", American troops were in Afghanistan to protect Americans from the terrorists who seek to destroy it. Although improving conditions in Afghanistan might be a "commendable goal", that is not the mission. There was no outrage here.
I cannot help but wonder - what would George Bush have said about the proposed law? Would he also have taken the position that bringing freedom and dignity to all Afghanis was not America's mission, or would he have sounded more like Stephen Harper?
And what about the public flogging of a 17 year old screaming girl in Pakistan? Is this also none of America's business? I may be wrong but I have not heard any outrage expressed over this by President Obama in his recent world tour. He certainly had ample opportunity during his many press conferences and speeches to say something about this. As far as I can determine, the US government did not wish to comment on this horrific incident from an ally country despite requests from the media. The most they could finally muster up was a statement by UN Ambassador Susan Rice that this would "appear" to be an abuse of human rights which the US "would be" very concerned about. I am not sure whether the President said anything about it himself. And what about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who ran against Obama as a champion of the rights of women, and in particular the right of a woman, i.e. her, to become President?
I would love to see some of their AIG bonus rage from the U.S. Administration on these issues. And I am sure we would have seen it from George Bush.
Perhaps I will start off with the following question: What would George Bush have said about the proposed law in Afghanistan which would have required women to submit to having sex with their husbands on their demand, or to require their husbands' permission to leave the house?
Normally one government will refrain from interfering in the internal domestic affairs of another country. This is generally a legitimate approach. It is not up to people who live in one country to preach or lecture to the people of another country. Conventions, cultures and values differ from country to country and democratically elected governments are ordinarily answerable only to those persons who put them into office.
When internal domestic matters, however, give rise to breaches of international law, or raise human rights concerns, other countries do not have to remain indifferent or silent. This is particularly so when the country that is abusing the human rights of its citizens, or is flouting international law, is being supported, either financially or militarily, by other countries.
Kudos therefore to the Stephen Harper government for its firm and uncompromising stand on the proposed Afghanistan law referred to above. Canadians are fighting and dying in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and to improve the condition of Afghanis. It was therefore entirely appropriate and laudable for Prime Minister Harper, and other Canadian parliamentarians, to publicly condemn the proposed law. The Prime Minister made it clear that "making progress on human rights for women is a significant component of the international engagement in Afghanistan." Canadians from both sides of the political spectrum called on President Karzai "to make sure Afghanistan lives up to its international treaty obligations for human rights, especially human rights for women." Prime Minister Harper showed yet again that when it comes to foreign affairs, he is prepared to stand up for what the Canadian government believes in, even if sometimes Canada has to stand alone.
Now let me turn to the public position of the American government on this issue. As far as I can tell, President Obama's limited position was that although the law was "abhorrent", American troops were in Afghanistan to protect Americans from the terrorists who seek to destroy it. Although improving conditions in Afghanistan might be a "commendable goal", that is not the mission. There was no outrage here.
I cannot help but wonder - what would George Bush have said about the proposed law? Would he also have taken the position that bringing freedom and dignity to all Afghanis was not America's mission, or would he have sounded more like Stephen Harper?
And what about the public flogging of a 17 year old screaming girl in Pakistan? Is this also none of America's business? I may be wrong but I have not heard any outrage expressed over this by President Obama in his recent world tour. He certainly had ample opportunity during his many press conferences and speeches to say something about this. As far as I can determine, the US government did not wish to comment on this horrific incident from an ally country despite requests from the media. The most they could finally muster up was a statement by UN Ambassador Susan Rice that this would "appear" to be an abuse of human rights which the US "would be" very concerned about. I am not sure whether the President said anything about it himself. And what about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who ran against Obama as a champion of the rights of women, and in particular the right of a woman, i.e. her, to become President?
I would love to see some of their AIG bonus rage from the U.S. Administration on these issues. And I am sure we would have seen it from George Bush.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Another Great Gift Idea
I do not want to dwell on it, but I would be remiss if I did not bring to your attention the latest Presidential gift idea. (See my earlier posting "Selecting the Right Gift Can Be a Real Pain", March 9, 2009).
What does one give to the Queen, who is one of the the world's richest women? (How wealthy is she? Hard question to answer. Apparently she is not in top 10. See http://money.uk.msn.com/guides/women-and-money/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4758684.) Well, how about an iPod? That is apparently what President Obama gave the Queen of England, although it was not just an empty iPod but one already loaded with a video of the Queen's visit to the USA in 2007. As with the President's gift of 25 DVD's to Gordon Brown, this gift has not gone over that well with some naysayers. See the Telegraph.co.uk story at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/04/01/barack_obamas_gift_for_the_queen_an_ipod_your_majesty. The story does also note however that there was another gift, "a rare songbook signed by Richard Rogers". That would, I think, be something special.
Okay, no big deal. We are in an economic crisis and complaining about trivialities like the quality of the President's gifts to world leaders is probably silly. But I just had to mention it, and I thank one of my faithful readers for alerting me to this breaking news story.
What does one give to the Queen, who is one of the the world's richest women? (How wealthy is she? Hard question to answer. Apparently she is not in top 10. See http://money.uk.msn.com/guides/women-and-money/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4758684.) Well, how about an iPod? That is apparently what President Obama gave the Queen of England, although it was not just an empty iPod but one already loaded with a video of the Queen's visit to the USA in 2007. As with the President's gift of 25 DVD's to Gordon Brown, this gift has not gone over that well with some naysayers. See the Telegraph.co.uk story at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/04/01/barack_obamas_gift_for_the_queen_an_ipod_your_majesty. The story does also note however that there was another gift, "a rare songbook signed by Richard Rogers". That would, I think, be something special.
Okay, no big deal. We are in an economic crisis and complaining about trivialities like the quality of the President's gifts to world leaders is probably silly. But I just had to mention it, and I thank one of my faithful readers for alerting me to this breaking news story.
Carver On Galloway: An Update
This is just a short update on the George Galloway issue. On March 30, 2009, Justice Luc Martineau of the Federal Court of Canada dismissed an application by Galloway and sponsors of his Canadian speaking tour for an injunction that would allow him to enter Canada later that day. ( http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/IMM-1474-09%20decision.pdf ). This decision did not deal with the merits of the government’s position that Galloway is inadmissible on grounds of engaging in terrorist activities by virtue of delivering humanitarian aid and cash to Hamas officials in Gaza. Justice Martineau noted that a mandatory injunction to circumvent the ordinary immigration decision-making process would be unusual, and he declined to grant it on the limited evidence available on an interlocutory motion. He agreed that Galloway met the “low threshold” of raising several serious issues to be tried (including an allegation of political interference by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney), but that he failed to show that “irreparable harm” would result from the injunction’s not being granted, particularly given that Galloway would be able to ‘speak’ at the scheduled meetings by videoconference. Mr. Galloway and his sponsors remain free to pursue judicial review of the government’s decision. I hope that they do. The government deserves to be embarrassed on this issue, and an unfavourable ruling might discourage them and future governments from acting in such a high-handed fashion.
Peter Carver is a professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta. He teaches immigration, administrative and constitutional law.
Peter Carver is a professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta. He teaches immigration, administrative and constitutional law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
