NewsMap: Great Way to Browse the News

Abu Ghraib: They Got Away With It

I am dishearten and disgusted by the army’s decision on the Abu Ghraib torture investigation:

So, while low ranking enlisted personnel are prosecuted and convicted for torture and abuse:

Whatever happened to concepts like “Chain of Command” and “Command Responsibility“? Heck, we need not rely on such fancy terms simply to ask, What happened to decency, common sense and accountability? There’s no way that the abuses committed at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, — as documented here and here and here — were somehow carried out by bunch of “low-ranking” military men and women unbeknownst to their commanding officers… there’s just no way! You and I know that those further up the chain of command knew what was taking place:

Of course those further up the chain, all the way up up the chain, knew about what was taking place in Abu Ghraib — in fact, they planned on it all along (PDF):

I know that the army’s decision to clear the top brass of responsibility on the Abu Ghraib torture matter has been covered already; however, I just needed to comment on it for myself. Because, to me, the unjustified Iraq war and the Abu Ghraib tortures, in particular, embody and encapsulate what I see in my mind’s eye when I think of the Bush administration; and, please, understand that I’m not a so-called “pacifist” nor am I strictly opposed to the use of military force, — in fact, on more than on one occasion I’ve sworn to protect and bear arms on behalf of the United States and in defense of the Constitution (and I would do so without hesitation) — however, the Bush administration’s unjustified invasion of Iraq represents a direct assault against the best ideals that American democracy has stood for:

• Accountability to the people
• Tolerance and pluralism
• Shared sacrifice and responsibility
• Transparent and responsive government
• And an “honest broker” abroad

What the Bush administration has done under the guise of “defending America” has, instead, eroded our liberties at home (i.e., so-called patriot act) and isolated us from much of the world; and, unconscionably, Bush & Co. are getting away with it.

“Separation of Church and State is Absolute”

I came across this on Talking Points Memo, via Andrew Sullivan :

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. — John F. Kennedy

President Kennedy was right then, and he remains correct now — and always.

Senator Dole Tells Me to Piss Off

Senator Dole, a former Republican presidential candidate no less, writes, “I’ll bet you are an extreme member of the left wing just like Terri Gross.”

Frankly, I was a little surprised to read what Senator Dole had written, on two counts: one, he actually responded to a letter I’d addressed to him and, two, I was surprised and disappointed at the schoolyard level of his missive — though, to his credit, he did stop short of calling my mom names.

Of course, continuing with the schoolyard tone of his response, that good ‘ol stand-by taunt is almost audible — So-and-So, Sitting in A tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G — as Senator Dole naturally concludes that Terri Gross and I “deserve each other.”

So, aside from that little blue pill, what could’ve possible gotten such a rise out of Senator Dole?

(That was a cheap shot, I know — but, come on, it was high and slow… I had to take a swing.)

On April 12 Senator Dole was on NPR’s “Fresh Air,” hawking his book “One Soldier’s Story : A Memoir.” The host, Terri Gross, was extremely accommodating and gave Senator Dole ample time to discuss the book and his life’s story; however, as a responsible journalist, the host asked Senator Dole to comment on some current events, specifically: the nuclear option and Rep. DeLay’s alleged ethics violations. Of course, as expected, Senator Dole immediately resorted to the partisan talking points on both issues; however, to my hear, the Senator went too far when he completely dismissed the allegations against Rep. DeLay as merely an attack by Democrats and their allies in the “liberal media” — including NPR. Now, I don’t have the transcript of the interview, so I cannot post the exact quote, but you can hear the interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4587202.

What was even more infuriating is that Terri Gross, of course, did not question Senator Dole’s unfounded accusations and simply let his ridiculous charges rest. Subsequently, Senator Dole insisted that he was on the program to talk about his book and was not there to discuss politics and, of course, Terri Gross acquiesced.

Well, right after I heard the radio interview with the Senator I shot off this letter to his Washington, DC, office:

Which motivated the Senator to respond with:

I like how the good Senator, a former representative and public servant, which at one point had hoped to represent all Americans as our president, basically told me — an American citizen that, to boot, has worn the nation’s uniform — to go piss off. Of course, all is forgiven, since the Senator does close by invoking god’s grace on America — now, as for the rest of the planet, if my reading between the lines is correct, it can simply go piss off.

Identity Politics

The issue of race — specially as it relates to African-Americans and White-Americans — is such a curious subject, particularly for progressives; since, I belive, we’re not afraid to actually explore it. Now, race is clearly an important issue, and it will remain so for a long time — though it admittedly gets more and more complex as other so-called minority groups join the political discourse. Now… I don’t know how to go about this… I’m much more of a socioeconomic progressive, that is, I subscribe to the notion that environmental (societal and economic) factors “largely” trump even issues of race — that is, beyond race we can agree on the impact of socioeconomic factors on our communities. Here’s what I mean: whether one is a poor Latino, poor African-American, poor White or, simply, poor while living in America, lack of access to health care, lack of access to education, lack of access to capital, lack of access to any one of these things will limit how high one can rise and what one can aspire to. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that racism is no longer a factor — clearly it is; however, I am trying to explore the notion that — as I belive — “identity” politics may be limiting and — perhaps — may tie us to a retrogressive model of political/community organizing. Like a lot progressives, I too have taken part in “identity” politics — Chicanismo, Brown Pride — but found that part of my political involvement a bit constraining, because I belive that bigger gaps can be bridged by collaboratively engaging our common enemy — an enemy that often uses societal and economic forces to divide us.

As you can see, this is pretty much stream of consciousness, so my point may not be very clear and, am sure, could be expressed more fully and tactfully — but I hope that the jist of my point is somewhat apparent.

UPDATE: I’d like to add one more point:

“Identity” politics is not going away, and it shouldn’t — it plays an important role, specially early on for a lot of progressives, as we learn of the contributions that our individual communities have made to America. Accordingly, as many commentators have pointed out, we — progressives — need to adopt the organizational model that conservatives have used: whether one is a corporate conservative, a social conservative, an NRA conservative, etc., they’ve all agreed to form a wide coalition and understand that while today one’s pet cause may not get the nod from the “coalition,” perhaps tomorrow it’ll be one’s turn. So, in the meantime, while the corporate conservatives get their estate tax, tomorrow the social conservatives will get their judges — you get the point.

We need to be as pragmatic and our coalition would naturally include progressives of all stripes: environmentalists, feminists, identity politics progressives, socioeconomic progressives, etc.