Human Rights: What Your Government Doesn't Want You to Know

by Nomad

How can human rights be upheld when so few people are even aware of what they actually entail?

How can governments be held accountable when they have convinced their citizens that there may be certain times and certain situations when humans don't deserve their inherent rights?

Ideals that Bind Us Together

What with the revelations of last week, most people in the US might have missed the fact that last Wednesday was an important date. In 1950, the United Nations designated October 10 "Human Rights Day." Admittedly, every day should be a human rights day, this particular day is meant to remind us 

"that each one of us, everywhere, at all times is entitled to the full range of human rights, that human rights belong equally to each of us and bind us together as a global community with the same ideals and values."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called upon member nations 

"to honour their obligation to protect human rights every day of the year. I call on people to hold their governments to account. "

Only the day before, the Senate released a demoralizing and shocking report on CIA practices during the Bush Administration. It revealed to the American people and to the whole world even a superpower could justify the shocking forms of torture.
So, these allegations of violations of human rights could not possibly have come at a worse time.

Motivated!: George W. Bush and the Hucksters

by Nomad

Last month, I saw an article that I have been meaning to pass along to you. 

First, here's some information about what it means, financially speaking, to be an ex-president.  

The Financial Joys of Being an Ex-President

According to CNN, when a president leaves the White House he remains on the government payroll, receiving an annual pension of about $200,000, health care, paid official travel and an office. The rent on a office fit for an ex-president has to impress and therefore tends to be both swanky and pricey. (The rent on Clinton's New York City offices reportedly run at half a million.) 

All of these it's probably needless to say are taxpayer-funded benefits.

Even for a person as illiterate and as bumbling as George W. Bush, apparently there are plenty of people out there that still can't get enough of the man. His last book, (in which he boasted-among other things- of authorizing torture) reportedly earned him $7 million for the first 1.5 million copies of "Decision Points." (Without the benefit of the conservative book selling tricks, Clinton bested Bush with his own memoirs which netted him $15 million advance.)

Then there is the speech-making circuit. It's not exactly hard work but it is an easy way to earn a year's salary in a day. George Bush, since leaving office has made a tidy fortune.

Getting Motivated!
Ok, now for the story I was telling you about.
Joseph L. Flatley, writing for Whowhatwhy.com, learned how former president George W. Bush found another way to supplement his income since he  moved out of the White House. (Although it is not particularly new news, I thought you'd find it interesting.)

Showdown: Why the Truth on CIA Torture May Become Obama's Greatest Challenge

by Nomad

No nation is perfect. But one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better. -- President Obama on the release of Senate Intelligence Committee's CIA use of enhanced interrogation techniques

This week, in the hallowed halls of Congress, a moan and a shudder could be heard when the Senate released its findings on the truly horrifying excesses of CIA interrogations used upon suspected terrorists following the 911 attacks. 

The Narrative Dissolves

A quick review of the 600-page executive summary of the report explained why Republicans had been doing all they could to block its release. From torture techniques that involved threats to suspect's children and forced enemas, ice water baths and threats to use drills as torture devices, to CIA lies about the successes, the report could hardly be more damaging to the Republican narrative. 

The New York Times has helpfully made a list of the most important findings:

• The C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques were more brutal and employed more extensively than the agency portrayed.
• The C.I.A. interrogation program was mismanaged and was not subject to adequate oversight.
• The C.I.A. misled members of Congress and the White House about the effectiveness and extent of its brutal interrogation techniques.
• Interrogators in the field who tried to stop the brutal techniques were repeatedly overruled by senior C.I.A. officials.
• The C.I.A. repeatedly under-reported the number of people it detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques under the program.
• At least 26 detainees were wrongfully held and did not meet the government’s standard for detention.
• The C.I.A. leaked classified information to journalists, exaggerating the success of interrogation methods in an effort to gain public support.

The Washington Post has also compiled a list of the most egregious acts found in report. Here are some of the items:

• Of the 119 CIA detainees, 26 should not have been apprehended.
• Abu Zubaida, the CIA's first detainee, spent 266 hours in a coffin-size confinement box.
• Of the at least 26 detainees who were wrongfully held, one was "intellectually challenged."
• CIA officers would "strip a detainee naked, shackle him in the standing position for up to 72 hours, and douse [him] repeatedly with cold water."

For the more cynical, the fact that the report was released at all is a bit of a shock. Certainly it is long overdue and could easily have been classified so utterly that the American public- at least this generation- would never have seen it. 

Its release also turns the tables on a lot of the Republican talking points about exposing the imaginary scandal of Benghazi. 

How We Came to Accept Police Brutality as the Norm 2/2

by Nomad

In Part One of this two part series we discussed the origins of the present problem between the black community and law enforcement. Reagan's get-tough on crime was based on a theory that came with some direct warnings about the potential for discrimination. The president chose to ignore them.

Reagan's anti-crime crusade led to giving law enforcement more freedom to do their job. At least that was how it was portrayed in conservative circles at the time. That policy was called "pro-active policing." 

Problems with Pro-Active Policing
An  ultra-conservative American libertarian think tank, The Cato Institute, paints a very different picture of the policy today. A site run by that organization, which attempts to highlight police misconduct, describes pro-active policing as..

the use of nearly autonomous elite police units that are trained to be more aggressive than regular officers as a response to gang and drug related violence by targeting people they suspect of being criminals before they commit crimes. These units are encouraged to use whatever tactics they can get away with in order to get results, those results being a high arrest rate.

Like the later preemptive strike doctrine of the Bush era, it is easy to see in retrospect how easily pro-active policing could be abused. The danger of this practice was that notion that police should be responsible for preventing crime before it happens. How is that even possible? 

Well, one description might remind you of the sci-fi film "Minority Report"

In proactive policing, law enforcement uses data and analyzes patterns to understand the nature of a problem. Officers devise strategies and tactics to prevent or mitigate future harm. They evaluate results and revise practices to improve policing. Departments may combine an array of data with street intelligence and crime analysis to produce better assessments about what might happen next if they take various actions.

This high tech description however tends to gloss over the more controversial aspect, a highly visible street presence which is intended to intimidate criminals before they commit crimes.  The more intimidating, the better.

Ironically, what developed over time was a gang mentality of thugs within the police force.

These teams tend to be close-knit and insular, trained to use highly aggressive tactics with very little oversight, and taught to think and act like the gang members and drug dealers they investigate while under cover.

In other words, the balance between the lawless and the lawful was so blurred that it was difficult to see which element was the greater threat to the community. The police force- especially when made up of white officers- took all of the appearances (as well as the mentality) of an occupying military.