The greatest casualty of 9/11: The America we knew

Shahid Buttar is the Executive Director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.


Reflections on the 9/11 attacks are important and moving. But most overlook the enduring legacy of the attacks, in the form of the vastly greater damage done to American principles over the past decade. Whether in the context of surveillance, torture, or the congressional cowardice that has enabled them, our leaders have sullied the legacy of an America that once inspired the world.

Earlier this summer, when facing a crucial accountability moment for an agency that continues to abuse the rights of millions of Americans, members of Congress asked no tough questions, avoided controversy, and submitted to a White House proposal to entrench the FBI leadership—at the same time as they fought to the knuckles over issues that Congress created in the first place by spending the country into a fiscal black hole and absurdly cutting taxes in the midst of multiple wars.

Most astounding in all this is Congress's apparent abandonment of its own institutional interests. Even in the face of documented lies by the FBI's leadership to congressional committees and repeated proof that Congress, the press, and the public are hearing only tiny slices of the whole truth, Congress has failed to use its many tools to seek transparency and investigate executive abuses.

Restoring the Fourth Amendment: How We the People Can Win Over Washington

Despite promises of change, the Obama administration has proven itself either unwilling—or unable—to shift the paradigm driving increasingly invasive surveillance, or increasingly pervasive profiling according to race, religion, and national origin. Nearly halfway through the Obama administration's term, the battle to banish the Bush administration's policy legacy remains largely unfought, let alone won.

But this is no time for progressive and libertarian constitutionalists to throw in the political towel. While "change you can believe in" may have been a premature promise from our president, we at the grassroots enjoy ample opportunities to shift the landscape in DC.

Whether concerned by government spying, or the guilt by association apparent in profiling Latinos, African Americans, and Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians for various so-called "signature crimes," limits on local law enforcement authorities offer the potential to galvanize solidarity among communities of color. Measures restricting domestic intelligence operations can also attract the support of libertarians—including some elements of the Tea Party—disaffected by the Washington consensus favoring expanding executive power.

Enough is Enough. Time to Get Real BP (and that Means "Honest")

A Catalog of the Long-term Implications of the BP Gulf Spill

Enough time has passed at this point that as a national and global society we need to consider the worst case scenarios regarding the BP oil gusher. When the top energy adviser to the White House, Carol Browner, says in a live interview “This is probably the biggest environmental disaster we have ever faced in this country,” (CBS’s “Face the Nation”) and the situation is getting worse not better, it is necessary to consider the long-term implications of simply allowing a morally corrupt corporation remain in control of fixing the (ongoing) mess they have caused.

In a worst case scenario Browner explained , "There could be oil coming up 'til August [and…] we are prepared for the worst." The worst case scenario, of course, would be that the gushing well is not able to be capped at all and we will all be forced to wait until BP is able to finish drilling the two relief wells they began working on several weeks ago. As far as I know, however, that does not necessarily mean that the oil will stop leaking completely though either, merely that the pressure pushing it out will be relieved (hence, "relief well"). If I am misunderstanding the net result of this operation and an expert in the field can explain what I am missing, “There is No Spoon” would love to learn a thing or two in the comment section of this post.

Seriously though, have not we been trolled enough already by “Beyond Petroleum?" I think it is time that government resources be used more judiciously and the bill slapped on BP’s treasury desk. In fact, I couldn’t help but think about Bush’s Mission Accomplished fiasco--I mean speech—back in 2003 regarding the successful end of the US-Iraqi war (for those who don’t know, our men and women are still over there).

Please do not get me wrong, I am not so naïve as to think that during the first few weeks after the explosion, the execs at BP headquarters would have been so quick to tell the truth, (i.e. admitting that they didn’t have a clue and needed help from the US government as soon as possible). That is just not how the world works, as the Oil Giant’s biggest investors would be skinned alive if Virgil were to come loose so early in the crisis--don't forget how many politicians have money in oil either (a la Cheney and Co). They needed to buy time. Okay, fine. I get it. Yet, by May 10th we were on our 6th attempt at solving this issue having already been told that the big steel box thing-a-ma-bob contraption was going to work--then it wasn't going to work--uh, uh, yes it is--nope Terry farted again, it isn't. On to plan F comrades: let's stick a 4-inch pipe down the busted steel well pretend like that will siphon off enough oil to call it progress. After three days of failed attempts BP Says Latest Scheme to Halt US Oil Leak Working Well. In fact, if you watch the video on that BBC page you will very quickly be under the impression that all is solved and we can all go home for "it has succeeded," claims the reporter. “Significant amounts of oil [were] being siphoned via this mechanism.” The next day we learned that "BP, is finally getting a handle on stemming the tide of some of the leak. BP engineers have used a pipe fitted into the leaking well head and have been able to divert some of the oil up to the surface to a drill ship." At the time of reading this, I turned to my partner and asked, "Does that mean that if I turn a flashlight on at midnight it's suddenly almost dawn?" On May 19th we learned that the pipe had freezed up due to ice crystals and was no longer having an impact.

On May 26th BP’s effort to plug the hole with “junk and mud” was going as planned

Then it wasn't.

Then BP's Junk Shot wanted not.

Today, June 3, 2010, we learned that the company finally cut the pipe and is preparing to cap it. As a result the stock climbs 5% while the rest of the market goes up less than half a per cent.

For the record, I would not be nearly so hard on the Execs if “[they] really [were] doing everything in their power to fix this thing,” but they just aren’t.

So enough bitching and moaning on my part, I just wanted to refresh my memory a bit on what has gone on thus far so that I might begin to understand what we can expect from this ugliness moving forward.

First, BP will most definitely not go bankrupt. I expect the company will be much smaller in 5 years or so, but after 101 years of paying fines, British Petroleum has figured out how to work the system and then some.


Second, the nearest state to BP's gushing undersea well (42 miles away), Louisiana, has been the most impacted by the spill so far, and as we all know the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the horrible response of the then President is ongoing. Unfortunately Louisiana’s pains are about to get more acute as Governor Bobby Jindal said this week that "more than 100 miles (160 km) of Louisiana's 400-mile (644 km) coast had so far been impacted by the spilled oil. State officials have reported that “sheets of oil” are wrapping the precious wetlands and seeping into marine and bird nurseries, not to mention the oyster beds that serve as the economic motor for many small communities there. Sticky sludge stains cover the marsh cane that binds the wetlands together and promises to endanger the wildlife for quite some time.

In Mississippi and Alabama, “tar balls and surface sheen,” have been reported, while last week National Coast Guard officials spotted tar balls on some beaches in the Florida Keys, raising fears that the Loop Current, which sends water and wild life from the Gulf of Mexico through the Florida Straits may have already brought oil from the spill far to the southeast. Apparently, however, laboratory tests subsequently showed the tar balls were not from the BP spill. (Where else would they be from?) Perhaps what is more scary, however, is that Pensacola was reportedly struck by the rich black goo yesterday, drawing the possibility (illustrated in the simulation embedded in the previous post) that if not contained very soon, small bits—followed by heavy streams—of oil could find its way as far north as North Carolina.

DERIVATIVE IMPLICATIONS (more detailed analysis of the impact of the BP oil spill)

FISHERIES— Having declared a "fishery disaster” in the seafood-producing states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama due to the oil spill, the US government has made these states eligible for federal funds to offset the impact on fisherman and their communities of the oil pollution in their fishing grounds.
Louisiana's $2.4 billion seafood industry supplies up to 40 percent of U.S. seafood supply and employs over 27,000 people.

The state provides more shrimp, oysters, crab and crawfish than any other state in the country and is the second-biggest U.S. seafood harvester. As of Friday, the NOAA extended the area closed to fishing in the Gulf of Mexico to 25 percent of Gulf U.S. federal waters—an area covering 60,683 square miles (up from 20 percent previously, with a warning that more closures should be expected. Mind you, all of these economic effects are for a single state, currently receiving a lot of attention. I can only imagine the more subtle effects of this crisis.

WILDLIFE
As reported, Oil—in thick sheets, surface sheen and tar balls--has come ashore in Louisiana wildlife reserves like the Breton National Wildlife Refuge in the offshore Breton and Chandeleur Islands, and the Pass-a-Loutre refuge further to the south. Large amounts of methane gas has also been released from the source having an unseen/unknown impact. However, during the 43 days since the spill started, wildlife officials report that 491 birds, 227 turtles and 27 mammals, including dolphins, have been collected dead along the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to an update released on Sunday by the oil response unified command.

TOURISM
Tourism operators in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida-- from hotel owners to restaurateurs and boat charterers -- have reported cancellations as a result of the oil spill.

From HotelNewsnow.com we learn that “Tourism officials and hotel operators in Gulf of Mexico coastal regions say they are struggling with occupancy and reservations, but some areas are suffering more than others.”
[…]

We have had some cancellations. It is hitting the beachfront properties hard and the casinos have seen some impact … and the charter boat companies,” said Richard Forester, executive director of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau in Biloxi. The timing is unfortunate, since many hotels and casinos had been experiencing an uptick in business earlier this year as the U.S. economy started to improve, he added.


SHIPPING

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said on Friday it has begun surveying a new ship anchorage site at the mouth of the Mississippi River for ships to undergo inspection and oil decontamination before entering ports. This is a subtle if significant development as we are beginning to see the outlier impacts of the BP spill moving forward.

U.S. authorities are anxious to sustain Gulf shipping operations as the Mississippi Delta is extremely vital to U.S. exports and imports. NOAA says the Lower Mississippi River ports export over 50 million metric tons of corn, soybeans and wheat per year, more than 55 percent of all U.S. grains inspected for shipment.

REAL-ESTATE
If the bursting of the housing and commercial real estate bubble wasn’t weighing on the real-estate already, it is hard to believe that anyone would desire to buy up oil-front property. This particular point might seem far off at the moment, but remember that the source of this oil is over 1 mile below the surface of the water. It will take time, even after the oil well is successfully and completely capped, for all the oil that comes out, to find its way to the surface.

OIL INDUSTRY
There is likely to be a significant impact to the oil industry moving forward for a number of reasons. The most obvious will be the immediate cost to BP to clean up the physical mess—estimated by Credit Suisse to be 37 Billion—but that does not include what it will take to repair their image after this colossal crisis. The expectations of these profit losses has not only brought down BP’s market value, but the entire oil industry as it is a major component of the S&P500 and nearly all energy indexes. Also weighing on the industry are expectations of new costly regulations that will be put in place to make sure this never happens again. The end result amidst a continuing debt crisis in Europe is more strain on an already weak recovery.

Pay No Attention to the Oil behind the Curtain: the Cheney Administration's Perfect Execution

Behind the excitement associated with the debt concerns of various countries in Europe, allegations of fraud against certain Wall Street titans, the over-heating of the Chinese real-estate market, and of course the record price of gold, there remains a tedious War Against Terror, that has finally dragged on long enough for the majority of ADHD Nation to stop paying attention. Meanwhile, it seems the success of the oil auction in Iraq early last year was timed perfectly, creating a windfall for American oil services companies Halliburton (HAL), Schlumberger (SLB), et. al., just before the market cycle begins to thaw and the stronger dollar begins to deplete the market-exchange value of oil (crude is hovering around $76, down from $87 two weeks ago). Having committed to a drilling backlog of 2,500-3,000 new wells per year for each of the next six years as well as to the development and maintenance of the pipeline and shipping terminal infrastructure that will support this massive number of new wells that will be coming online throughout this time period, it appears that the Chaney administration will have indeed succeeded in making Iraq the world’s largest oil exporter (not to mention putting a solid revenue stream in Halliburton's back pocket). The total value of these contracts may reach as much as $60 billion over the next six years, generating $1 billion in new revenues for each company per year.

Two offshore terminals are currently under construction already (first reported here back in 2009), and another two are scheduled to begin by 2013. Upon completion of all four, oil production in the country will go from the current 2.5 million barrels a day to an awesome 12 million barrels per day by 2016. [Official EIA list of top oil producing countries as of 2008]

Iraq’s oil production peaked at 3 million barrels per day in 1979, and then dropped dramatically after it invaded Iran. Saddam did very little to help the ailing situation thereafter, sucking and stealing what little financial nutrient remained from the teet of the severely broken oil fields at the expense of his own people. Year-end earnings reports from every oil engineering company involved in the region reported dismay at just how poor the state of Iraq’s energy infrastructure is after 40 years of neglect, essentially proclaiming that it all has to be rebuilt from scratch. Granted, I try to keep these proclamations in perspective—after all, common sense tells us not to ask a barber if he thinks you need a haircut. Nonetheless, SEC regulations do not permit falsification of facts of any kind in financial statements, and this is one area of government that is fairly well regulated. In the end, if the new Iraqi government can provide the necessary infrastructure (or at least the funding for American and European companies to build it) and political stability necessary to turn Iraq into another Saudi Arabia, we could very well be witnessing one of the largest changes to international trade in a great number of years as it will dump an incredible supply of oil onto the market, essentially putting a long-term cap on dollar denominated oil prices.

Flashback 8 years, and we can see why anti-war activists were the only voices confronting the feeble and unconvincing arguments that were allegedly holding up the United States’ declaration of war and the right to invade Iraq. Early in the planning of the war there was near-open discussion about the US’s ability to reclaim the cost of the war using newly freed oil exports; hence, Iraq’s oil fields were never targeted during either gulf war—well, at least not by the US.

Could it be that much of this philandering stock market entertainment and even the BP oil spill off the US coast is really just a big sideshow meant to distract us from the significant events taking place in the background? Come to think of it, back in 2002 wasn't Saddam Hussein threatening to begin only dealing Iraqi oil in Euro? Funny the Euro is imploding as I write this, down to 1.23354 from an intermediate high of 1.5141 four months ago. It seems the pieces are just falling into place. If I were rooting for the oil mongers and pandering politicos, I might be inclined to say "well done sir! Talk about planning to perfection."

Reprint of "Boxing, Wrestling, and the American Dream"

What follows is an unpublished essay written in March of 2006. It was written long before Barack Obama announced his candidacy for presidency of the United States of America. Reading this essay four years after it was written makes me summons an ironic adage: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Indeed, it seems that in one regard the essay was quite prescient in its assertion that the American People were demanding fairness to return to the "ring." I do not think the author could have expected, however, just how in tune with the future his discussion about Jack Johnson's pardon at the end of the essay was in regards to the historic election of the first African American President. Unfortunately, the promise of change may end there. It seems even the calm and collected Barak Obama can only do so much to change the politics of this country. The middle class continue to get squeezed and pushed further down the ladder of consequence; the War in Iraq will soon replace Vietnam as the longest running war in American History; oil still rules our existence even as the promise for unlimited renewable energy lies at our finger tips; and the richest 2% still control 98% of the world's wealth.

Although the essay makes references to the politics and entertainment of the time in which it was written (i.e. former President Bush, Rocky VI, etc,) it is really intriguing to see how similar everything looks. The one minor difference seems to be a marginally better opinion of Americans amongst the rest of the global citizenry.

Haiti in Context: History

Note: This is a Partner Post to Haiti in Context: Voices. Please check out both. They represent some of the best information I've seen on Haiti that's emerged over the past few days.

It has been a tough 4 days for Haiti and its Diaspora but from struggle emerges strength. I first want to say I am every renewed by the way I've seen folks in my own personal network and internationally begin to pull together for Haiti. I am clear that what we are doing now is small and late, but there is nothing like watching community form before your eyes and working together. Political differences become supplanted in the midst of crisis and when heavy lifting is occurring. A number of people have reached out to me regarding Haiti and the context surrounding the country that would allow an earthquake to do so much damage. In reality, like most "natural disasters" there are very human causes that lead to such catastrophic consequences. I have assembled some of the best writing I've seen on the context and figured I'd let you read the experts words moreso than mine.

Alternet covers the emergence of Haiti and the deep connections between the United States, Haiti and the globe:

However, more than two centuries ago, Haiti represented one of the most important neighbors of the new American Republic and played a central role in enabling the United States to expand westward. If not for Haiti, the course of U.S. history could have been very different, with the United States possibly never expanding much beyond the Appalachian Mountains.
Read More

The Socialist Worker has a good article on the policies that helped produces deep issues of political and economic infrastructure.

"The media coverage of the earthquake is marked by an almost complete divorce of the disaster from the social and political history of Haiti," Canadian Haiti solidarity activist Yves Engler said in an interview. "They repeatedly state that the government was completely unprepared to deal with the crisis. This is true. But they left out why."

To understand these facts, we have to look at a second fault line--U.S. imperial policy toward Haiti. The U.S. government, the UN, and other powers have aided the Haitian elite in subjecting the country to neoliberal economic plans that have impoverished the masses, deforested the land, wrecked the infrastructure and incapacitated the government.
Read More

Double Standards: How Our Lawlessness Strengthens Our Enemies

We have failed to even investigate torturers, yet we have prosecuted and imprisoned millions for lesser offenses. And we allow mass murderers the benefit of constitutional rights that we deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Until policymakers examine and fix these double standards, they will continue to undermine our foreign policy, as well as our domestic criminal justice system.

We now know that the Bush administration's torture policies proved horrendously counterproductive, in more ways than one: they eroded our allies' trust, undermined the ability of our non-state supporters to credibly defend our goodwill, generated bad intelligence in the form of forced—and predictably false—confessions, and undermined the morale of the professional interrogators who resisted their illegal (and idiotic) orders.

Worse yet, torture drove recruits into the arms of our enemies. According to veteran interrogators from multiple armed services, as well as the FBI, the number one reason militants flocked to Iraq was U.S. torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Force Base, CIA black sites, and the various foreign countries to which we continue to outsource torture through the extraordinary rendition program.

It was galling enough when, last year, all three branches of the federal government colluded to sweep evidence of torture under the rug. Confronted by thousands of abusive acts depicted in photos—some as severe as outright rape—DC united to protect its own. Acting at the behest of the CIA's discredited leadership, the administration lobbied Congress to amend a federal statute to grant the Defense Department an extraordinary authority to hide specific evidence of its own criminal trail, and the Supreme Court signed off on the deal.

Now, the double standard has come full circle...twice.

The first has plagued the Obama administration throughout its first year in office, and undermined the legitimacy of both its foreign policy, as well as our criminal justice system. On the one hand, people whose criminality stands hidden in plain sight—the former officials who unapologetically authorized torture, like Cheney, Addington, Bybee, and Yoo—remain free of even investigation, let alone prosecution. On the other hand, people of color face relentless prosecution and vicious penalties for non-violent offenses like drug possession, gambling, or even moving violations.

The second double standard is more recent, equally troubling, and potentially more problematic going forward. On the one hand, charges facing mercenaries apparently guilty of senselessly murdering nearly 20 Iraqis (in a bloody incident that touched off one of the most violent episodes of our six-year occupation) were dismissed by a federal district court on Thursday because the prosecution relied on statements given under promises of immunity, and thereby violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

On the other hand, the kangaroo courts at Guantanamo Bay we call "military commissions" don't even pretend to honor such rights, or others that are far more fundamental. Mercenaries who commit mass murder with profound international consequences were afforded robust constitutional protections barring the use of statements made under promises of immunity. Meanwhile, detainees held by the U.S.—who have included humanitarian workers and tourists swept up with "the worst of the worse" in the race to find scapegoats—held no right to exclude statements coerced by outright torture until last fall. Nor have they (for the most part) enjoyed the opportunity to assert any rights in impartial courts.

Rather than federal courts defending the rights of the accused against potentially arbitrary imprisonment, detainees plead their cases before biased military commissions seeking pre-ordained outcomes. Rather than exclude "compelled statements" like those of the exonerated Blackwater contractors, the military commissions operating in Guantanamo Bay (and those proposed by some policy analysts as a model for an even broader scheme to operate within the U.S. after the facility in Cuba has closed) invite unreliable evidence routinely rejected by federal courts.

The U.S. military commander in Iraq attempted to explain Thursday's decision with the lame and inaccurate assertion that it offered "a lesson in the rule of law." What the dismissal of the Blackwater contractors' charges actually demonstrates is quite the opposite: law requires consistency, whereas our approach to accountability for war crimes smacks of opportunism.

The imperatives to defend our nation's historical legacy, or the universal moral principles condemning torture, or the international legal system and its bedrock prohibition on torture, have apparently proven too quiet for the deaf ear of Washington institutions. No one seems to care that although torture is an international crime, officials complicit in it remain highly rewarded and occupy prestigious positions in government and the private sector.

But these double standards carry a price, well beyond the reputation and moral standing our nation has already lost.

We wage, in the war on terror, a battle for hearts and minds. And there is no surer way to lose that battle than to violate the rights of detainees, while vindicating those of mercenaries--or to prosecute politically powerless people for innocuous behavior, while praising officials who violate our species' most fundamental shared commitments. Such blatant inconsistency is lost neither on our enemies, nor the billions of individuals targeted by their recruitment efforts.

Officials increasingly wring their heads over a supposed threat of domestic radicalization. It is ephemeral in the first instance, but the concern points to a generally legitimate fear: people of any kind who grow alienated could eventually turn violent.

Some Muslims in America may indeed be growing increasingly alienated—which may seem understandable in the face of policies like "special registration" round-ups, guilt by association, pervasive surveillance, the infiltration of religious institutions and entrapment by ex-convicts paid handsomely by taxpayers, intrusive interrogations and searches, private sector employment and housing discrimination, hate crimes, bullying, and racial and religious profiling by law enforcement authorities. But as a group, we have not renounced the social compact by taking up arms, to any greater extent than former servicemembers could be said to have been categorically radicalized by virtue of some supporting right-wing militia groups like the Aryan Nation.

But while Muslim Americans remain loyal to the U.S., people in other countries have no compact with us to renounce. And they have no reason to accept our military presence except the principles we purport to uphold...at the same time that we overtly violate them without apology.

The strategy that could most effectively hamstring violent extremism abroad is the same one that would most effectively stop disaffected youth in America from turning to violence: applying our principles equally and with consistency. Honestly investigating our nation's record, and prosecuting those individuals responsible for international crimes, would go a long way to reassure observers that we take justice seriously. And allowing the rights and laws in which we have long taken pride to also govern the trials of those we militarily detain would relieve concerns about U.S. human rights abuses, both among international critics and domestic observers targeted by militant propagandists.

At the moment, we continue to fail on each front. Despite the President's pretty words in Cairo last fall, we Americans committed to rule of law and the Constitution remain waiting for that "change [we] can believe in." And it's not just us: the world—and the people over whose hearts and minds we struggle—are watching, too.

This article was originally published by Huffington Post.

Torturing the Rule of Law

Sixty years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson left Washington to pursue what he later called "the most important, enduring, and constructive work of [his] life": prosecuting international war crimes committed during WWII. Justice Jackson helped usher in a new international regime that promised to help deter human rights abuses.

Unfortunately, Jackson's achievements have proven less enduring than he hoped. Our nation continues to undermine international law by sweeping torture under the rug, with serious implications going forward.

The Nuremberg Trials established a timeless principle: individuals are criminally liable for violating fundamental human rights, even if their governments authorized those violations. Some laws, Nuremberg held, transcend those of any nation.

We have fallen a long way in so short a time. Rather than enforce international principles we once pioneered by prosecuting former officials who enabled torture, our nation today violates those principles with impunity.

President Obama's focus on the future aims to transcend the political divisions deepened by his predecessors. But setting aside the past comes at a price.

Most concretely, failing to prosecute taints the debate on other "war on terror" policies. Preventive detention schemes, infiltrations of law-abiding groups based on constitutionally protected speech or religious activities, and secret warrantless surveillance programs each entail severe threats to the Constitution. They demand public debate.

But these debates have been skewed by the inclusion of former officials who, because they remain free from investigation, also remain free to champion their discredited policies in public. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, vigorously defends the Bush administration's detention policy, despite clear evidence that torture hurt America in more ways than one.

Torture harmed our international relations with even allies like Britain, which curtailed cooperation with the CIA because of inhumane detainee treatment. Moreover, as the U.S. Air Force Major whose interrogations found the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq has written, "Torture and abuse became Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives." Criminal prosecution would place the arguments of Bush administration apologists in the context they deserve.

Other costs of avoiding prosecution are less concrete but equally severe. For instance, failing to prosecute, by definition, erodes the rule of law. Law entails the consistent application of neutral principles across differing contexts. Yet our nation tolerates vast inequalities in prosecution. Between 2006 and 2007, over 320,000 Americans received prison sentences for non-violent offenses. In sharp contrast, among the senior officials responsible for authorizing torture, none have faced even a criminal investigation -- let alone charges, prosecution or a sentence.

Hundreds of lawyers across the country recently wrote the Attorney General and Congress to explain how this unequal justice undermines the legitimacy of our legal system. They wrote, "The severity of systemic disadvantages in the criminal process grows more disturbing -- and the system's legitimacy grows less secure -- when violations of our nation's most fundamental commitments carry no consequences for potential criminals who wield political influence."

Lawyers are not the only ones challenged by this bias. Nearly 500 teachers also raised their voices, noting how lawlessness impacts students: "We teach principles about our nation's history, founding, and governance that appear simply implausible...[T]he preferential treatment of senior officials who commit heinous crimes-relative to the school-to-prison pipeline that ensnares many of their peers for relatively innocuous misbehavior-does not escape [our students'] attention."

Thousands of other concerned Americans from all 50 states, including hundreds of health professionals and interfaith religious leaders, have also observed that our country's future ability to promote human rights elsewhere turns on whether we do so here at home today. We at the Bill of Rights Defense Committee invite other concerned Americans to join their call.

The Bush administration's assault on the rule of law helped propel President Obama into office. Rather than fulfilling his politically daunting campaign promises, however, the administration has chosen expediency over equal enforcement of the law.

The President himself has suggested time and again that it is ultimately up to "We the People" to defend our interests. The struggle to restore rule of law is one we will win, but only with the passionate participation of every concerned American.

---

Reposted from Huffington Post. An earlier version of this article appeared in The August Free Press as an op-ed on June 27.

Injecting sanity into the torture/prisoners debate - waterboarding, anyone?

Okay, that was sort of/completely a joke. I am not actually advocating we waterboard Congressional leaders, members of the media, or advocates regarding how ridiculous these discussions have become. At least I won't suggest such measures publicly. Sorry...some more torture humor. But there are a few important points that I think these discussions are just flat-out missing overall. Some folks are raising them, but in general, we don't hear enough about them.

1. Let's drop the moral issue for a second. Not to say that's not important/the most important issue at stake here, but I wonder if we even need to get that far. The question that might make all this debate pointless is...is torture useful? Seriously...can we try to really get a handle on this question? I realize we're not going to get a definitive answer, but I do think we can get a consensus view about how reliable torture actually is. Remember, the whole point is for intelligence, not to break somebody. This is why back-engineering SERE for interrogation seems to be useless...it doesn't really seem to serve any intelligence purposes.

3 years?? Are you f*&king kidding me??????

Muntadhar al-Zaidi was sentenced to 3 years in prison this past week. Al-Zaidi is the journalist who threw two shoes at Bush in Iraq a few months ago, during Dubya's disgraceful legacy tour. The quotes from the incident have often been lost in the coverage, and I think they are very important. Before throwing the first shoe, al-Zaidi yelled "this is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog." The second shoe was preceded by "this is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq." Really powerful stuff.


Back when it happened, I thought (along with many others) that al-Zaidi, a respected journalist, should be considered for the Pulitzer. He took a great risk to make a strong statement against Bush, a man that is responsible for so much suffering in Iraq. He was reportedly beaten quite severely in jail. And now, thanks to a court system that the CPA through Paul "Viceroy" Bremer set up, this man has been sentenced to three years in jail. This is an absolute outrage. Sure, throwing his shoes was not exactly "appropriate", but that was the whole point. There are few things as insulting in Arab culture as throwing your shoes at someone. And his two comments...everyone knows the "dog" one. But the media never mentioned the second one. That was his raison d'etre. This war has led to a level of death in Iraq that few Americans even begin to understand. How many women lost their husbands? How many children lost both their parents? How many lives have we destroyed? Sure, it's easy to look at statistics here, and use the language of "strategy" to dehumanize the situation. Al-Zaidi couldn't really do that. Iraqis can't do that. If they're fortunate enough to be alive and fairly healthy, they get to see hell every single day. And a journalist like him, covering this continued tragedy...imagine how much carnage he's seen. Then think about the fact that the man who is most responsible for that horror comes to your country near the end of his term to tout the progress that has been made in an effort to boost his own legacy. This man whose war has devastated your country. He was there for a PR tour. He had the nerve to act triumphant. So, yeah, there was nothing more appropriate for al-Zaidi to do than throw his shoes, even though he knew the police would brutalize him. They focused on his words, not just his act, all over the Arab and Muslim world. There's a reason people consider him a hero...and it's not just some reactionary "he threw his shoes at that Bush devil" thing. No, it's because what he said, what he decided to take a stand against. He was unwilling to let Bush have his PR victory in a land he turned into hell, for all those whose lives Bush has destroyed.

And what does he get for his courage? Three years in jail. This is a travesty. He goes to jail for throwing shoes at a man who made the decision to illegally and unjustly carry out a war and occupation, based on cooked intelligence, that has made Iraqis long for the Hussein years, and that man gets to retreat to a life of luxury and set up his Freedom Institute at Southern Methodist University to basically defend his decisions as president. Perfect. This ruling is an absolute crime, and we need to stop it from happening. How? For starters, make sure people know just what happened. And don't make it a joke...so many thought it was hilarious that he threw his shoes at Bush. Yeah, it was funny, but also incredibly serious - I think it was one of the most purely honest actions against the war and occupation. So, people need to be serious about this...no, ha, no way, the shoe thrower is going to jail? This is a serious indictment against the type of system Bremer set up in Iraq, and the entire scale of justice in terms of the war. Three years for a non-violent act of opposition to the war and occupation...three years. That's incredibly unjust. Though, if his appeal is denied, and they send al-Zaidi to jail for three years for this, Iraqis in return should be allowed to try Bush and his Iraq War cabal for crimes against humanity in an Iraqi court. How's that sound?