Another Death in the "War on Terror"

I am going to vote for Barack Obama for president in November, and I have good reasons to do so. The Democratic ticket more closely represents my ideals, though it isn't perfect. I believe in gay rights; I believe in a woman's right to choose her own birth control and to have low-cost, easy access to methods that prevent pregnancy in the first place. I believe that the wealth gap is widening in our country, that corporations and the rich have too much power. I really think we should have universal healthcare and that the government should be able to negotiate lower drug prices. I believe in a public education that helps its citizens to become critical thinkers. I believe in the separation of church and state. The Republican Party, as it exists today, supports policies that are inimical to  these ideas, and it's largely responsible, through following the rhetorical instructions of people such as Newt Gingrich, in creating the toxic public rhetoric that drives our politics today. In addition, under the presidency of Barack Obama, Republicans have been pig-headedly obstructive in these times of economic crises, putting politics before the good of the country.

That being said, one of my really big disappointments in the Obama administration is its inability to shut down Guantanamo Bay and its continuing many of the war policies of the Bush administration. And I despise the fact that the DOJ hadn't the balls to go after those who approved administration-sanctioned torture in its "war on terror." (How's that working? Has terror disappeared from the face of the earth?) Unfortunately, voting Republican would not create a change here, either. Mitt Romney is being advised by some of the same neo-cons who got us in the war in Iraq with their lies and unbelievable naiveté about how long the war would last, how much the war would cost, and how little the war would impact the very people we were supposed to be liberating. 

My disappointment is magnified by stories such as that of Adnan Latif, who was finally successful this past week in his many attempts to commit suicide in that national disgrace of a prison, Guantanamo Bay. 

Congress, of course, is greatly at fault, too, in abdicating its responsibility to declare war and in allowing the executive branch to accrue more power. And so are we responsible, too, in our silence, in our eager readiness to follow that presidential advice years ago to "go shopping" rather than to deal with the harsh realities of our nation's actions.

Adnan Latif is finally returning home after ten years. . . . in a coffin. I doubt his death has aided the "war on terror." Do you?

Democratic Weakness: Letter to Harry Reid

I don't know how effective e-mailing our governmental leaders is, or, for that matter, whether blogging about my reactions to life and politics has any real effect on anyone but myself. I often feel as I feel about prayer, that the words coalescing in my mind and issuing out of my mouth really have an audience of one--myself. However, I guess that--despite my sometimes cynical exterior--I am an optimist. Just in case someone might be listening, for the past few years, I have made a habit of writing letters to our political leaders when I really want to register my reaction to something they have said or done. On May 20th, I sent the following e-mail to Senator Reid:

Dear Senator Reid,
As Senate Majority Leader, you also represent me, even though I live in another state. And I want you to know how seriously disappointed I am with the Democratic Senators who have failed our president by whining about moving prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to prisons in the United States. When Barack Obama won the presidential election, I was so proud and happy, knowing that many of the bad decisions made by the Bush administration would now be rectified. I had not, however, thought that the Democrats themselves would stand in the way of rectifying bad policy.

Your recent stand on not allowing those enemy combatants to be moved from Guantanamo Bay is faithless and cowardly. It reminds too many independents why they hesitate to vote for Democrats. If Democrats can't show courage now, when they have a popular president to lead the way, they certainly can't be trusted to do the right thing when the going is tough.

Will you and the other Democratic senators please fight for what is RIGHT, not for what is expedient? I live in a state that's Republican, but there was a lot of support for Barack Obama here--and a possibility of gaining ground for the Democratic Party. But not if the Democrats refuse to stand firm and offer a real, substantial, alternative choice over Republicans.

Sincerely...

Now, today's Washington Post has an article on the growing number of political independents in the United States: "Pew Values Poll: Independents Upper Hand," Jennifer Agiesta, Washington Post, posted May 21, 2009. The "independent" voters that I know seem to fall in line with the description of this poll:

On questions of the social safety net and equal opportunities and rights, independents have shifted toward traditional Republican positions, while on broader role of government questions, independents hew more closely to the Democratic point of view. Independents also tend to lean closer to Democrats on issues including regulation of the free market, social values, religiosity and national security, but are more apt to agree with Republicans on government responsiveness.

Those independents that I know are family members who, I suspect, usually vote Republican, but they hope for the Democratic Party to offer some real solutions and leadership. When that leadership fails, they turn to the party they have traditionally trusted, while complaining that the two-party system is inadequate. Obama's presidency offers a chance to find more support among independents for Democratic policy--but that chance will disappear if independents perceive Democratic leaders as waffling and indecisive.

Story of a journalist

The Columbian Journalism Review has an article about an Al Jazeera cameraman who has been held in Guantánamo Bay since 2002, without access to legal aid until 2005. The story of Sami al-Haj should make the blood boil of every American who truly believes in the ideals of democracy. And yet this is a story repeated over and over again at Guantánamo Bay: someone gets picked up in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq and is handed over to the American military and assumed guilty. Sometimes the person is mistaken for someone else. Sometimes the person just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes the person is an "enemy combatant" with no real military threat. Sometimes the person is indeed a member of Al-Qaeda. But none of these people, no matter what their level of guilt or innocence, has had access to adequate--if any at all--legal aid. They disappear into the black hole of Guantánamo Bay, and most Americans don't seem to care.

Why should we care? Because what happens at Guantánamo Bay reflects on us, on our legal system, on our sometimes indignantly righteous claims of freedom. Over 300 detainees from Guantánamo Bay have been released or transferred to prisons elsewhere. Do you think they are returning to their countries with stories of the greatness of democracy, of their fair treatment under a just legal system? How do the practices of Guantánamo Bay differ from any dictatorship?

Here's something that really struck me, as it also struck Glenn Greenwald: Although al-Haj was a journalist with Al-Jazeera, the Arab news organization didn't press the U.S. much for release of its employee at first. A spokesman for the organization said that right after 9/11, a great number of people thought that the horror of the terrorist attacks gave the U.S. some justification for detaining people. Also, people just didn't believe at first that the U. S. would torture prisoners. The rest of the world understands what democracy is; the rest of the world understands what the Statue of Liberty represents. As Ahmad Ibrahim, a producer for Al Jazeera says, ". . . in the Arab world, the situation at Guantánamo was difficult to comprehend or believe, even—that any kind of torture would be perpetrated by the U.S. A lot of people didn’t comprehend what Guantánamo stood for, and the legal arguments that were used to justify it."

That naiveté is long gone. With Guantánamo Bay, the Bush administration has voided the democratic ideals that this country has long represented. And I can't help but wonder: if the administration can get away with suspending legal rights of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay with little outrage from ordinary, voting Americans, when will our government realize that it can import those practices for use against American citizens? Oh, wait. . . .that's already happening. . . .

Morris, Rachel. "Prisoner 345." Columbia Journalism Review. July/August 2007. Online: http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/prisoner_345.php?page=1