This blog will discuss many issues pertaining to current events and encourages others to discuss and do the same. The goal is to raise the level of discourse and hopefully have a good time sharing thoughts and ideas.
It is being reported that the Israeli government is complicit in illegal construction of settlements on land that belongs to Palestinians, a violation of international law.
The human rights group Yesh Din has obtained classified documents from the Israeli Defense Ministry which indicate that the Israeli Government has known that as many as three out of every four settlements in the West Bank, have been built without proper permits and have occurred on private property. The data in the report demonstrates:
• Over 30 settlements – including longstanding settlements such as Ariel, Kochav Yaakov, Beit El, Elon Moreh and Ofra – that were to some extent built on private Palestinian land. • Construction activity within settlements being conducted without necessary building permits or in direct violation of the building plans. • The extent and locations of unauthorized building in outposts across the West Bank.
The organization Peace Now, also recently released a study which documents the rapid expansion of settlements in 2008. The study indicates that 1,518 new structures were built in Jewish West Bank settlements, an increase of 60% from 2007. Further interpretation of the study indicates:
Of the news structures, which include homes and caravans, 927, or 61 percent, were built west of the security fence and 591, or 39 percent, were built east of the security fence. One-quarter of the structures east of the fence were built in outposts. The 261 structures built in the outposts represent a more than doubling of the 98 built in 2007, and include five new structures in the Migron outpost, which the Israeli government announced it would relocate to a nearby settlement.
There was also a very good report on this topic on 60 Minutes recently. You can view the report below:
When I heard that President Obama gave an interview to Al Arabiya television the other day, I knew that there was going to be some intense backlash. Before long, bloggers and pundits were outraged that Obama was "apologizing" to the Muslim world for the conduct of America during the so-called "War on Terror". Take Ben Shapiro, columnist for Townhall.com and Worldnetdaily.com, whose latest piece is entitled "The Day America Lost the War on Terror".
As one might imagine, Shapiro starts by claiming that America "lost the War on Terror" on the day that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, November 4, 2008. Shapiro then goes on to use broad, sweeping, and overly dramatic language to make the point that Obama is making America less safe and that Obama's global agenda will end up killing the idea of Ameircan exceptionalism.
Let's start off with Obama's interview to Al Arabiya to which you can find the video here and the transcript here. The clips of the interview that have been circulating and that many have focused on are as follows:
Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries...the largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.
And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.
I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.And so you will I think see our administration be very clear indistinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down. But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.
Obama stresses a few different points in these clips:
- Muslims, Christians, Jews, and people of every faith all share in common hopes and dreams. - The Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who want to live good lives and leave a better world for the next generation. - Though we (America) have not been perfect and have made mistakes, we are not the enemy of the Muslim people. - Obama believes that the relationship between the Muslim world and America can be restored. - Language matters and we cannot "paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.
If you read some of the postings and writings of those who are critical of Obama's approach in this interview, you would get an entirely different feel of what Obama said. I will focus on some points from Ben Shapiro's most recent piece, but the themes he puts forth are similar in many of the critiques that I have been reading.
The following clips are from Shapiro's piece:
In the interview, he demonstrated with the utmost clarity that his understanding is inversely proportional to his arrogance. He started by humbling America before the world. “(A)ll too often the United States starts by dictating,” Obama said, shame for his country dripping from his lips. “So let’s listen.” There was no call for the Muslim world, which has sponsored genocide after genocide, terrorist group upon terrorist group, to listen.
Obama apologized for President Bush’s “Islamic fascism” terminology, equating Muslim terrorism with nonexistent terrorism by Jews and Christians...There was no call for the Muslim world to actively fight terrorism—honesty is not the Obama administration’s policy.
Most sickeningly, Obama openly jettisoned his constitutional role as the caretaker for America’s national interest. Instead, Obama posed himself as an honest broker between America and the Muslim world...He stated that his job is to speak for the Muslim world, defending them from Americans’ negative perceptions...
Shapiro begins by stating his displeasure with Obama "humbling America before the world" due to Obama's comments that we need to communicate and that we are willing to listen and not just dictate. "With shame for his country dripping from his lips," Shapiro quips and then complains that Obama didn't ask the "Muslim world" to listen. Perhaps Mr. Shapiro does not realize that when two countries engage in diplomacy, both sides get a chance to talk and both sides get a chance to listen. This is also characteristic of how a productive conversation takes place. Just because Obama has pledged to listen to other countries does not automatically mean that he won't also make America's voice heard. In fact, Obama specifically says this later in the interview: "We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world." (emphasis mine).
Shapiro then goes on to chide Obama for "apologizing" for former President Bush's use of the term Islamic fascism, for "equating Muslim terrorism with nonexistent terrorism by Jews and Christians", and for not being honest because he didn't call for the Muslim world to actively fight terrorism. Firstly, Obama never "apologized" for Bush's use of that term, he only explained why he believes it important not to paint any faith with a broad brush. Secondly, the blind eye that Shapiro turns toward terrorism committed by other religions throughout history is alarming. Thirdly, Obama has continually stated in speeches leading up to the election that one of his goals is to work with other nations, Pakistan included, to develop strategies to combat terrorism and their ability to gain access to weapons and funding. And Obama is the one not being honest?
Above it all, what Shapiro finds most sickening, is that Obama sees it as his job to "speak for the Muslim world, defending them from Americans' negative perceptions", and actually, I also find it troubling. I find it troubling that it is even necessary for the President to have to explain to us that the Muslim world is full of exceptional people, not simply terrorists. I find it troubling that this even needs to be addressed and quite indicative of the discourse of the last eight years, that a population need to be dissuaded from believing that an entire group of people do not all harbor ill will toward Americans.
However this is not why Shapiro is troubled. He is troubled that Obama is a "global imperialist" that seeks to not advance the interests of America but of the world. "Not all Muslims are “extraordinary people'," Shapiro writes, "and the interests of suffering Muslims do not always align with American interests."
What Shapiro views as a "global imperialist" is actually a figure who appears to understand that the decisions the United States makes, have a global impact. It is specifically the viewpoint that is advanced by Shapiro, that of advancing American interests at all costs, that has the result of discounting how the rest of the world is affected by such decisions. It is this viewpoint that supports ridding Iraq of a dictator who is a perceived threat to the United States without taking into account the potential blowback of millions of children growing up in a ravaged country with a hatred of those who destroyed their homeland. It is this mindset that fails to see that what may be in the world's interest, is also in America's interests as well. "Global Interest Imperialism dooms American exceptionalism," Shapiro concludes. Perhaps America's greater exceptionalism will come when we realize that our progress as a country, lies in advancing the human interests of the global community.
The reinvigorated patriotic glow of the inaugural festivities has quickly grown dim as the daunting task of reshaping America is already causing some backlash in the media and in the blogosphere. Most notably is President Obama's decision to halt prosecutions at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days and the eventual closure of the facility within one year. This action has sparked outrage that has spilled over into some conservative blog entries with opponents to Obama's order making the claim that this action has made America less safe.
There are some common themes and arguments that those who have written about this topic tend to put forth. These include, and may not be limited to:
- Those who are being detained in Guantanamo Bay are the worst of the worst and pure evil, so you cannot charge them as if they were citizens of the United States. - Closing the base at Guantanamo Bay and trying the detainees on American soil will invite terrorist attacks on the United States. - The trials that have been operating under the military commission system are the proper place for "enemy combatants" to be tried.
I should start off by saying that some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been held for over seven years without a single charge being brought against them. At the same time the Bush Administration, and many who offer their support for this facility, continue to put forth the argument that those detained are the worst of the worst and guilty of wanting to destroy America. How do we know this? Because the former Administration has told us so! So in the framing of this discussion and to keep with one of the cornerstones of our system of justice, we must first acknowledge that those accused of crimes, even those as heinous as terrorism, are innocent until proven guilty.
This leads me into the first point that I have listed above. Those who continue to advance the argument that those captured are an exception to "normal" criminals and therefore should not be tried as such. I am not advancing the argument that all of those who are being held at Guantanamo Bay are innocent, in fact there are probably some very dangerous people who are currently being detained. In the same breath, these detainees are human beings. Human beings who have made choices, aligned themselves with various ideologies, and hold strong beliefs (right or wrong) about the way the world should operate. If the choices they have made and the actions that they have taken are illegal, then they should be charged with a crime and have the opportunity for a fair trial just like any other person accused of wrong-doing.
In addition to upholding the basic tenets of justice that the United States was founded upon, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in June, 2008 in which the writ of habeus corpus was restored and it was ruled that detainees had a right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. So contrary to some arguments, yes, detainees do have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
Another popular argument of late is that trying the detainees from Guantanamo, on U.S. soil, will make the United States less safe and invite terrorist attacks on the country. This argument has been put forth by members of Congress, columnists, and bloggers alike. Some columnists, like David Stokes, have even suggested that detainees have been treated so well at Guantanamo Bay, that they would be more likely to be abused in the U.S. prison system. From his most recent piece:
People who have spent time at GITMO tell me that prisoners have been treated better there than they are at prisons in America. In fact, it is commonplace for American personnel to be the recipients of abuse meted out by the Guantánamo detainees.
Surely claiming that American captors are the "recipients of abuse" at the hands of the captive is an interesting argument, but it is Glenn Greenwald who does a very good job pointing out in a recent piece that the United States has tried, convicted, and imprisoned terrorists for years without incident. Greenwald sums it up nicely:
If it were really the goal of Terrorists to attack American prisons where their members are incarcerated and if they were actually capable of doing that, they already have a long list of "targets" and have had such a list for two decades. If U.S. civilian courts were inadequate forums for obtaining convictions of Terrorism suspects, then the above-listed individuals would not be imprisoned -- most of them for life -- while the Guantanamo military commission system still has nothing to show for it other than a series of humiliating setbacks for the Government.
Still after these "humiliating setbacks" with the military commission system, as Greenwald calls them, there are many who continue to argue that this is the system in which the detainees should be tried. As I continue to hear this argument, I am reminded of Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld, a former prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay that resigned in mid-September due to his objections to the military commission system. In a piece from October at Salon.com, Vandeveld says that he was "truly deceived" by the commission system. From the piece:
His deep ethical qualms hinged foremost on the fact that potentially critical evidence had been withheld from the defense by the government.
In addition to the resignation of prosecutors from Guantanamo Bay over the military commission system, the very idea that evidence obtained using coerced interrogation is able to be used against those charged underlines what a mockery of justice these commissions are. Suppression of evidence from the defense of those accused of serious crimes combined with the ability to admit evidence obtained through coercive interrogation are two very positive reasons why these trials have been halted and why this system has been placed under review by the Obama Administration.
Standing up for the rule of law and a system of justice that this country has prided itself in since its founding is not "coming to the defense of terrorists" or "wanting to put Americans at greater risk", as some have claimed of those who praise Obama's decision. We are talking about adhering to the basic principles of justice that have set this country apart from dictators in the past. Indefinite detention without charge and the implementation of torture by the leaders of a government is the mark of dictatorships and not a society that prides itself on justice through the rule of law. A return to these fundamental beliefs and practices is necessary for the United States to reassert itself as a country that not only treats its captives with respect, but has a strong judicial process which offers the accused their basic rights.
It seems as though there is some rage brewing in the hearts and souls of some conservative commentators about the benediction that the Rev. Joseph Lowery gave at President Obama's inauguration ceremony yesterday. Here is the benediction:
The part of the benediction that some conservative commentators are fumed about, is the last portion. Glenn Beck, comfortable at his new home on FoxNews, breaks down just why he is so angry:
Beck is amazed that there was an objection to the Rev. Rick Warren saying a prayer at the Inauguration for simply agreeing "with much of Obama's platform on gay marriage". Beck even sarcastically throws in, "what bigotry there". In fact, the objections to Warren were not because he "agrees with much of Obama's platform on gay marriage", but rather because he has equated homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. This strays from the point, but needs to be corrected nonetheless.
Beck continues on that instead of Warren creating controversy, it was Lowery that stirred the pot when he asked god to:
help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.
Beck decries this statement as "America being called racist" and goes on to say that he wants to believe in the message of change, but that this appears to be the same old divisive language that we are used to. Talk about missing the point. Beck even tries to imply that Lowery's old age has something to do with his remarks. Beck assures Obama that he and his family have been "down on their knees" praying for his success and that he is perfectly fine with "brown sticking around". Thanks for clearing that up Glen.
Joining Beck in expressing outrage at this benediction is Michael Savage:
Savage calls Lowery an "old black racist" and proclaims "how dare he say 'when white will embrace what is right' when he was elected because of white people." I guess it didn't cross Savage's mind that just because white people voted for Obama, it isn't proof that racism doesn't exist. Certainly it indicates progress in the last 40 years, but it does not indicate the eradication of racism. Savage goes on to express his outrage claiming that he was offended as a white person and wonders what Lowery meant by "when black will not be asked to give back". "What in the heck does this old man mean," Savage exclaims, "...you mean they won't have to pay taxes?"
Too bad that Lowery said "when black will not be asked to get in back" and not "when black will not be asked to give back" according to the transcript of his speech. Amazing to see what some will try to do to a message that is meant for inclusion and it is equally amazing to see Michael Savage trying to pass as a moral authority on race relations. Are members of the right-wing trying to re-emerge by placing themselves upon moral high-ground? Stay Tuned!
One of the better moments from this weekend's inaugural festivities:
Pete Seeger singing "This Land is Your Land":
Ever defiant and ever protesting, the 89 year-old Seeger managed to insert three rarely sung versus into his performance:
In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple; By the relief office, I'd seen my people. As they stood there hungry, I stood there whistling, This land made for you and me.
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me; Sign was painted, it said private property; But on the back side it didn't say nothing; That side was made for you and me.
Nobody living can ever stop me, As I go walking that freedom highway; Nobody living can ever make me turn back This land was made for you and me.
Finally it is here. President George W. Bush’s last day as President of the United States and the beginning of the newly elected Obama Administration. After eight long years of secrecy, law-breaking, and lies, a figure who has promised to put this country back on the right course is being sworn into office. The country is indeed at a crossroads as the promise of “change” finds itself at a standoff with crises too numerous to address all at once. People have latched onto the idea of hope that Obama has promised throughout his campaign and you can feel the tension and yearning for something new in city after city.
From house parties in San Francisco, to people taking Tuesday off work in Des Moines, to people talking about what party they will attend right here in Cincinnati, it is evident that people are placing their trust in this new Administration. As I sat in Tucker’s Restaurant and listened to people discussing what their plans were for the Inauguration, I wanted to see how a local progressive organization felt about what an Obama Administration may mean for causes that have virtually been ignored over the last eight years.
EarthSave Cincinnati is an organization that is affiliated with EarthSave International. They describe themselves as an organization which is primarily concerned with plant-based nutrition, compassionate treatment of animals and the overall general health of the population. This past Sunday they held their monthly vegan potluck at the Clifton United Methodist Church and had a discussion entitled “Messages for Obama”. Attendees broke up into small groups to discuss what they feel an Obama Administration should address during his time in office. After the meeting, I spoke via telephone with EarthSave Cincinnati’s Chair, John Mooter about the meeting and what EarthSave Cincinnati hopes an Obama Presidency will accomplish. Rush transcript is below and if you subscribe to this blog in a reader, you should be able to listen to the interview as a podcast or you can listen below:
CC: Could you just start by giving a background on EarthSave Cincinnati again and some of the issues the organization worked on in 2008?
JM: Yes. EarthSave Cincinnati is part of EarthSave international which was founded by John Robbins. John Robbins wrote a couple of books the first book he wrote was “Diet for a New America” and the second was “The Food Revolution” and both books deal with a movement toward a plant based diet for the health of the planet and human health and also for, let’s see, the animals themselves through compassion. Robbins was actually an air to Baskin' Robbins the dairy people, and he gave it all up and he kind of went a different direction. So That is kind of how the group got started and then little local chapters formed and we are one of the local chapters, we have been around for over 10 years. This last year we’ve had speakers on lots of different things, we are interested in people learning how to make their own gardens, city
gardening, we are interested in mercy for animals which is a group which tries to improve the condition of animals on factory farms or get people to stop eating animals, one or the other.
Also environmental issues to improve the environment through diet, so it is mainly a group about diet and it is mainly educational. It’s not a forced thing. We have potlucks that are vegan but of course a lot of people come who aren’t necessarily vegan but maybe lean in that direction or are somewhat sympathetic, so it is a broad base of people. I’m not sure how many members we have but we average anywhere from 40 up to 80, 90 people. Last year we had Will Tuttle come who wrote “The World Peace Diet” which is an exhaustive study on the plant-based diet and what factory farming has done to the earth and is not really being discussed by a lot of
these other environmental groups, like Al Gore, you don’t hear them talk about it at all, it’s just in the background. Our interest with Obama, you know part of it, he answered a question by someone from Vegan Outreach which we saw on YouTube, where he showed that he understood the impact of factory farming on the environment which kind of made us excited to think,
you know at least he is aware of it. So that was kind of good and that kind of got the ball
rolling. When we had our core group meeting we decided that since it was so close to this inauguration that maybe we would just have a group discussion. Usually we have a speaker come in something like that, you know we might have someone talking on raw food or whole
foods or cooking, different things like that, but this time what I did was I had about six or
seven people fascilitate each table and then each table kind of discussed everything. It wasn’t all food realated, people talked about more efficient cars and a lot of things that everyone else is talking about. What was interesting is one part where people disagreed is someone said “lower
gas prices” and other people said “make the gas prices higher” so people don’t drive as much…so you know better transit and a lot of other things that other groups might discuss.
CC: Sure, sure…so, all these people getting together, “Messages for Obama” I guess was the theme of your meeting...
JM: Yeah, yeah, right.
CC: and so, with everybody’s input, what were some of the core messages that you hope to address in letter form, or other forms, to the newly elected President?
JM: Well, we would like to see more of a movement toward local, plant-based type agriculture
as opposed to this agriculture that we have now, we would like to see improved lunches where instead of 35%-50% saturated fats, that they follow the guidelines that they, the government themselves, have established. Which they are not, you know, I taught for 35 years and I
couldn’t believe what they feed kids in school…
CC: Sure, sure
JM: and yet they have this pyramid and talk about all these plant foods, but what plants are they getting…like ketchup…I’m being a little sarcastic, but better lunches or alternatives
and just move toward better foods in schools is one of the things that EarthSave have been
involved in that for many, many years they even have a healthy lunch program. Of course they would like it to be all plant based but they also work trying to get more whole foods and whole
grains and fresh fruits and vegetables in schools.
CC: Do you feel that corporate influence, cause I know that a lot of times different
contracts as far as putting vending machines in schools…
JM: Yeah…right
CC: are often involved in the decision making process. So how do you work to combat such a huge element…
JM: Well, it’s a big problem and when I was in school McDonald’s and them would come right in there. Of course we oppose that, I don’t know what can be done, it’s something that we would
like to see go away.
CC: Sure, sure.
JM: Obama, I can’t remember exactly what he said when he answered the question from this lady from Vegan outreach, but he did talk a little bit about agribusiness and its emphasis on meat and dairy and that that should change. In other words we are subsidizing all these things…
CC: Sure, sure
JM: and telling people that’s what’s good for them and all the medical sciences disagreeing and pretty much agreeing with our stand I would say. There are varying opinions but whole foods
and plant based seem to be the way that things are going with Colin Campbell in this China
study, put out a book on that and John McDoughlal and Dean Ornish, there are so many books on reversing heart disease, Dr. Ethelstein, the list just goes on and on. These are all medical doctors now that are changing more to the low-fat plant-based diet. So those are all things that we would like to see happen in schools with education and adults as well. There’s a group, the Cancer Project, which is actually a cancer charity which works from the standpoint of diet rather than drugs and that type of thing…chemotherapy and all that. So, that’s sort of been our
emphasis at EarthSave more of preventative medicine.
CC: Sure. Do you feel concerned at all, there is so much talk about this country being at a crossroads with the economy being in the trouble it is in and the two
wars and the environmental issues that people are talking about…what would
you like to see Obama make his top priorities as he kind of moves into
office, because there really is so much to tackle initially.
JM: Well yeah, (laughter) personally I would like to see him get the war out of the way.
That would be my first priority which I think will probably (unintelligible). After that I don’t know, there is only so much one man can do. I’ve heard commentators say that the average American would give him two years to get something straightened out, I think that is being somewhat patient, I think it is going to take a lot longer.
CC: You know, some progressive groups have been critical of some of the decisions that Obama has made so far from his…
JM: Yes.
CC: …vote on the FISA legislation to some of his nominees for Cabinet positions. Are you hopeful that the issues that EarthSave cares about most are going to be
constructively addressed by the new administration?
JM: I just don’t know, and I do understand we’ve had some people angry about some of the things you’ve just said. There are others that see him as having to incorporate a lot of
different people with a lot of different perspectives and views and therefore in order to get something done he can’t just cut these other people out. So I kind of understand both and our hope is that some of what we would like done, will get done. Of course we want to be actively involved…we think it is up to him, we think it is up to us.
CC: and at least have a more open dialogue about it now with the new administration…
JM: Yeah, our group is more specific more diet related so we are just dealing with one area, there are so many others.
CC: Sure, sure. I guess more on a local scale with local school districts, any plans in 2009 to address, you know you mention nutrition in schools and things of
that nature…
JM: Yes.
CC: Are there any school districts that you have seen that are at least open to dialogue of incorporating more whole foods with nutrition?
JM: Yes, I’ve heard…I haven’t been real closely involved in that, but I’ve heard that some of the private schools, I don’t know if it was Seven Hills or Ursula or a couple of those, that have moved in that direction. I don’t know about locally, I’ve heard stories of some schools that have adopted whole foods and they talked about the graffiti going away and the grades going up, which doesn’t
surprise me. I really don’t have a whole lot of information on that myself, now Mary Ann Lederer might know more about that than I would…
CC: Ok.
JM: Who you can also, I mean she will gladly talk to you, she loves to talk.
CC: Ok great.
JM: I don’t know if you have called her yet, but…
CC: I have not, but I…
JM: Well she is home, you know she is in a wheelchair. She was injured a long long time ago, but she is very bright and very interesting to talk to if you have the time.
CC: Okay great. I will have to reach out to her as well and see what she has to say as well.
JM: Absolutely.
CC: Alright, well I guess just to sum up, at this time next year, what do you hope
will have been addressed in 2009 and where do you hope that EarthSave Cincinnati kind of stands this time next year?
JM: Well, I’m hoping that some of these food issues will have been addressed, that some of
these (unintelligible) like Tyson Foods, which is a leading polluter and I think the Clintons are actually involved in that as well, that some of the special interests in the meat and dairy industry will be addressed and of course the war, that’s the main thing. I would say those two things.
CC: That was John Mooter, Chairman of EarthSave Cincinnati. EarthSave Cincinnati is a group that was formed to promote eating plant-based foods, sharing concerns for the environment, compassionate treatment of animals, and improved greater health.
John Mooter mentioned that EarthSave Cincinnati will be writing a letter to President Obama based on the input from this past weekend’s meeting and will share it with the Beacon within the next month. For more information you can visit: http://cincinnati.earthsave.org/
I have devoted quite a few entries recently to the discussion of torture policies and my viewpoint that officials that approved these policies should be investigated and held accountable for their actions. I actually find it fascinating to witness some of the conversations that take place in the media in regard to torture policies and those who continue to insist that this is merely a question of political difference and debate as opposed to a discussion over accountability to the rule of law.
I am in complete agreement that outgoing administrations should not have to worry about policies being criminalized, but when those policies break the law and are potential war crimes, then certainly those who implement said policies should be investigated and held to account. When we are discussing violations of the law, we move beyond mere differences in political ideology and discussions about accountability to the law should not be viewed through merely a political lens. After all, we are a nation of laws and are of the belief that no one is above the law. It was quite refreshing to see the nominee for the position of Attorney General state today that "no one is above the law" and that "waterboarding is torture".
Despite Holder's assertion that "no one is above the law" President-elect Obama has not made any indication that Bush Administration officials will be investigated and face charges for implementing policies. In fact, Obama stated the tired line that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" this past weekend with George Stephanopolous. In order for Obama's Administration to hold the line that "no one is above the law" and to remain consistent with their assertion that "waterboarding is torture", there is no other option than to hold those who made the decision to implement torture, accountable for their illegal and immoral actions.
As President Bush and other Administration officials continue to admit that they approved of torture and Holder and Obama state that waterboarding is indeed torture that the United States has prosecuted others for in the past, the scenario is set for the next step of accountability. All the while there is still a debate about whether these policies are appropriate, with people like Joe Scarborough and Dick Cheney, continuing to defend these policies as necessary to the safety of U.S. citizens. The clip below is a prime example of just how backward the discourse has slid when these issues are discussed:
