February 13, 2010 Op-Ed Columnist
Watching China Run By BOB HERBERT
It was primarily a symbolic gesture. Way back in 1979, in the midst of an energy crisis, Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. They were used to heat water for some White House staffers.
“A generation from now,” said Mr. Carter, “this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people, harnessing the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”
Ronald Reagan had the panels taken down.
We missed the boat then, and lord knows we’re missing it now. Two weeks ago, as I was getting ready to take off for Palo Alto, Calif., to cover a conference on the importance of energy and infrastructure for the next American economy, The Times’s Keith Bradsher was writing from Tianjin, China, about how the Chinese were sprinting past everybody else in the world, including the United States, in the race to develop clean energy.
That we are allowing this to happen is beyond stupid. China is a poor country with nothing comparable to the tremendous research, industrial and economic resources that the U.S. has been blessed with. Yet they’re blowing us away — at least for the moment — in the race to the future.
Our esteemed leaders in Washington can’t figure out how to do anything more difficult than line up for a group photo. Put Americans back to work? You must be kidding. Health care? We’ve been working on it for three-quarters of a century. Infrastructure? Don’t ask.
But, as Mr. Bradsher tells us, “China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines and is poised to expand even further this year.”
China also has become the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels and is pushing hard on other clean energy advances. As Mr. Bradsher wrote: “These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.”
We’re in the throes of an awful and seemingly endless employment crisis, and China is the country moving full speed ahead on the development of the world’s most important new industries. I’d like one of the Washington suits to step away from the photo-op and explain the logic of that to me.
The truth, of course, is that there is no reason at all for this to be happening. The United States, in many ways, is very well prepared to move ahead on clean energy. It could and should be the world’s leader. Many, if not most, of the innovations in this area were developed right here. But much of that know-how, as we are seeing in China (and have been seeing in Germany and other places), is being implemented overseas.
The conference that I attended in Palo Alto spotlighted the need to move to a low-carbon economy in the U.S. and exemplified some of the resources available to make it happen. It was sponsored by the Brookings Institution and Lazard, the investment banking advisory firm. The participants included the leaders of — and major investors in — companies that are making great strides in the alternative energy industry. But much of their business is done overseas because right now in America’s wacky, dysfunctional public sector there is no clear vision of a viable clean-energy economy, and, thus, no clue about how to get there.
The network of world-class universities and advanced research institutions in the U.S. is by far the most impressive in the world: think Harvard and Stanford and Berkeley and M.I.T. and on and on. If you add to that the venture capital community in the U.S. with its vast experience and the willingness of investors to take risks, and the sheer entrepreneurial talent of the American business community, you end up with an array of resources fully capable of moving the U.S. into a low-carbon, high-growth and extraordinarily productive economy that would be the envy of the world.
But for that to happen — as Bruce Katz, a Brookings executive who was one of the organizers of the conference, pointed out — America’s corporate, civic and political leaders will have to “articulate what’s really at stake here.”
And what’s at stake is the future of the American economy. The low-carbon era is coming. We can be dragged into that newer, greener world by leading countries like China; or we can take up the challenge and become the world’s leader ourselves.
Showing posts with label US Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Senate. Show all posts
2/13/2010
1/24/2010
Granny D on Supreme Crt. Decision
http://www.truthout.org/doris-granny-d-haddock-response-supreme-court56272
6/22/2009
6/16/2009
Strengthen Bill for Food Safety
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/food_safety_bill/?r=3939&id=4562-1541929-NIYcTJx
11/12/2008
11/05/2008
Hopes and Stocks Rise
Obama wins historic US election *Democratic Senator Barack Obama says "change has come to America", after being elected the first black president of the United States.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7709978.stm
Obama makes victory speech *President elect Barack Obama has addressed supporters in Chicago after beating John McCain to become the next US president.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7710040.stm
Democrats score huge Congress win *Republicans lose ground in the race for Congress, projections indicate, with Democrats taking five Senate seats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7707760.stm
Stocks rise after Obama victory *Shares in Asia make gains following the election of Democrat Barack Obama as the next US president.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/business/7710106.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7709978.stm
Obama makes victory speech *President elect Barack Obama has addressed supporters in Chicago after beating John McCain to become the next US president.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7710040.stm
Democrats score huge Congress win *Republicans lose ground in the race for Congress, projections indicate, with Democrats taking five Senate seats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7707760.stm
Stocks rise after Obama victory *Shares in Asia make gains following the election of Democrat Barack Obama as the next US president.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/business/7710106.stm
7/16/2008
ACLU Sues Govt., July 10
Govt. sued over dragnet wiretapping law
Jul. 10- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit on July 10 to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work – which relies on confidential communications – will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress the day before and signed by President Bush, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power – and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."
In their legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.
Plaintiffs in the case are The Nation magazine and its contributing journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges; Amnesty International USA, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, Washington Office on Latin America, and the International Criminal Defense Attorneys Association
"As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world – from Iraq to Argentina. If the US government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today's lawsuit. "I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the US will put them in harm's way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it's a right."
The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.
In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.
"The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind."
In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.
"A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The only thing compromised in this so-called 'compromise' law is the Constitution."
Jul. 10- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit on July 10 to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work – which relies on confidential communications – will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress the day before and signed by President Bush, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power – and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."
In their legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.
Plaintiffs in the case are The Nation magazine and its contributing journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges; Amnesty International USA, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, Washington Office on Latin America, and the International Criminal Defense Attorneys Association
"As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world – from Iraq to Argentina. If the US government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today's lawsuit. "I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the US will put them in harm's way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it's a right."
The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.
In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.
"The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind."
In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.
"A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The only thing compromised in this so-called 'compromise' law is the Constitution."
5/08/2008
Small Farms Hugely Affected by Farm Bill
Small farmers have huge stake in farm bill debate
For the co-owner of Windrose Farm, the ideal measure includes better funding of so-called specialty crops and aid for those with a desire to work the land.
By Barbara Spencer, Special to The Times
May 7, 2008
THE GOLDEN time at Windrose Farm comes just before sunset. The oak-covered hills behind us are illuminated with a golden light. No matter how long the day has been or how much work is still to be done, the farm is glowing with life. It is the perfect time to walk and observe spring.
The longer we farm, the more we are affected by our location, soil and climate. Our choice of what to grow is more and more driven by our belief in terroir, the true nature of a place. This act of farming has changed our values and increased our connection to the earth.
This is also the time of the new farm bill. Originally, the Agriculture Adjustment Act, which was created in 1933 when 60% of American workers were involved in agriculture, was intended to control the supply of farm product and to guarantee a fair price. The goal was to keep farmers and their workers employed and one way to achieve this was to take some land out of production and compensate farmers for lost revenue. Later, programs were added for soil conservation and land preservation.
Today this is a $350-billion program that includes income and price supports, environmental conservation, loan credits, agricultural research, marketing and education projects. Support and programs for the organic farming industry, as well as for fruit and vegetable farmers, could come in this year's bill, currently being negotiated between the House and the Senate (the 2002 bill, which would have expired last October, has been extended several times).
Still, the vast majority of the funds are used in support of the main commodity crops: cotton, corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, sugar beets and dairy, with $5.2 million for direct payments to a small number of commodity farmers.
Rarely has federal money or attention gone to the farms that grow the crops sold directly to consumers at farmers markets, such as salad greens, strawberries, fresh market tomatoes or apricots. The foods we grow at Windrose Farm are considered by the government to be specialty crops. (Actually, most anything you would recognize on your plate would qualify as such.) And these foods traditionally have not been included in the farm bill funding.
So this year's bill could be groundbreaking. This is thanks to two influences: the growth of corporate organic farming and a groundswell of pressure from small farmers and consumer groups.
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/food/la-fo-onside7-2008may07,0,395721.story
For the co-owner of Windrose Farm, the ideal measure includes better funding of so-called specialty crops and aid for those with a desire to work the land.
By Barbara Spencer, Special to The Times
May 7, 2008
THE GOLDEN time at Windrose Farm comes just before sunset. The oak-covered hills behind us are illuminated with a golden light. No matter how long the day has been or how much work is still to be done, the farm is glowing with life. It is the perfect time to walk and observe spring.
The longer we farm, the more we are affected by our location, soil and climate. Our choice of what to grow is more and more driven by our belief in terroir, the true nature of a place. This act of farming has changed our values and increased our connection to the earth.
This is also the time of the new farm bill. Originally, the Agriculture Adjustment Act, which was created in 1933 when 60% of American workers were involved in agriculture, was intended to control the supply of farm product and to guarantee a fair price. The goal was to keep farmers and their workers employed and one way to achieve this was to take some land out of production and compensate farmers for lost revenue. Later, programs were added for soil conservation and land preservation.
Today this is a $350-billion program that includes income and price supports, environmental conservation, loan credits, agricultural research, marketing and education projects. Support and programs for the organic farming industry, as well as for fruit and vegetable farmers, could come in this year's bill, currently being negotiated between the House and the Senate (the 2002 bill, which would have expired last October, has been extended several times).
Still, the vast majority of the funds are used in support of the main commodity crops: cotton, corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, sugar beets and dairy, with $5.2 million for direct payments to a small number of commodity farmers.
Rarely has federal money or attention gone to the farms that grow the crops sold directly to consumers at farmers markets, such as salad greens, strawberries, fresh market tomatoes or apricots. The foods we grow at Windrose Farm are considered by the government to be specialty crops. (Actually, most anything you would recognize on your plate would qualify as such.) And these foods traditionally have not been included in the farm bill funding.
So this year's bill could be groundbreaking. This is thanks to two influences: the growth of corporate organic farming and a groundswell of pressure from small farmers and consumer groups.
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/food/la-fo-onside7-2008may07,0,395721.story
11/08/2007
Will Full Senate Block?
Published on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 by TruthDig.com
A Vote for Mukasey Is a Vote for Torture
by Amy Goodman
Judge Michael Mukasey admits waterboarding is repugnant, but refuses to say whether it amounts to torture. Yet Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein voted for his confirmation as U.S. attorney general anyway. Mukasey, Schumer and Feinstein should talk to French journalist Henri Alleg. An editor of a paper in Algeria, he was waterboarded by the French military in 1957, when the French were trying to crush the Algerian independence movement. The 86-year-old journalist spoke to me from his home in Paris:
“I was put on a plank, on a board, fastened to it and taken to a tap [water faucet]. And my face was covered with a rag. Very quickly, the rag was completely full of water. You have the impression of being drowned. And the water ran all over my face. I couldn’t breathe. It’s a terrible, terrible impression of torture and of death, being near death.”
Journalist Stephen Grey, whose documentary “Extraordinary Rendition” airs on PBS stations this week, told me: “I, like many journalists, should issue a correction, an apology really, because we all reported waterboarding as a simulated drowning. It is clear from those who did it, this is actual drowning … this is something that shocks the conscience and therefore is torture.”
In a remarkable demonstration of commitment to his job, former acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin, according to ABC News, underwent waterboarding when tasked by the White House to rework its official position on torture in 2004. Concluding that waterboarding is torture, he was forced out of his job.
On Monday, Nov. 5, anti-torture activists engaged in an actual demonstration of waterboarding outside the Department of Justice. Twenty-six-year-old actor Maboud Ebrahimzadeh volunteered to be the victim. After the session, he was near tears: “It is the most terrifying experience I have ever had. And although this is a controlled environment, when water goes into your lungs and you want to scream and you cannot, as soon as you do you will choke.”
Four retired military judge advocates general wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stating, “Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.” Twenty-four former intelligence agents and analysts agreed with the JAGs, adding, “Whether or not the practice is currently in use by U.S. intelligence, it should in fact be easy for him to respond.”
Yet Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know what’s involved in the technique, if waterboarding is torture.”
In the Judiciary hearing when the votes were cast, Leahy said: “No senator should abet this administration’s legalistic obfuscations by those such as Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and David Addington by agreeing that the laws on the books do not already make waterboarding illegal. We have been prosecuting water torture for more than 100 years.”
U.S. soldiers have been prosecuted for participating in waterboarding in the Philippines in 1901 and Vietnam in 1968. The U.S. imprisoned a Japanese officer in 1947 for using waterboarding against U.S. troops in World War II.
Sen. Edward Kennedy added: “Make no mistake about it: Waterboarding is already illegal under United States law. It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit ‘outrages upon personal dignity,’ including cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment. It is illegal under the Torture Act, which prohibits acts ‘specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’ It is illegal under the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.’ And it violates the Constitution.” He went on: “Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration-usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch, and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right, it is controlled death.”
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who voted for Mukasey’s confirmation, said Congress should pass a law forbidding waterboarding, having received assurances from Mukasey that he would uphold such a law. What if President Bush vetoed the law, or if he issued one of his signing statements used to sidestep bills he signs into law?
Despite all this, Schumer’s and Feinstein’s votes for Mukasey mean the Judiciary Committee has voted 11 to 8 to recommend his appointment as attorney general to the full Senate. From war funding to torture, you have to ask, If the Republicans were in the majority, would there be any difference?
Now only the full Senate can block Mukasey’s appointment. Maybe at least one senator will step up and filibuster the confirmation, just long enough for Mukasey to research and announce his opinion on whether waterboarding amounts to torture. If a U.S. citizen, soldier or official were waterboarded somewhere overseas, would Americans hesitate for a moment to call it torture? A filibuster might give the Mukasey supporters like Schumer and Feinstein pause to reconsider. For starters, they should talk to Henri Alleg.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America.
© 2007 Amy Goodman
A Vote for Mukasey Is a Vote for Torture
by Amy Goodman
Judge Michael Mukasey admits waterboarding is repugnant, but refuses to say whether it amounts to torture. Yet Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein voted for his confirmation as U.S. attorney general anyway. Mukasey, Schumer and Feinstein should talk to French journalist Henri Alleg. An editor of a paper in Algeria, he was waterboarded by the French military in 1957, when the French were trying to crush the Algerian independence movement. The 86-year-old journalist spoke to me from his home in Paris:
“I was put on a plank, on a board, fastened to it and taken to a tap [water faucet]. And my face was covered with a rag. Very quickly, the rag was completely full of water. You have the impression of being drowned. And the water ran all over my face. I couldn’t breathe. It’s a terrible, terrible impression of torture and of death, being near death.”
Journalist Stephen Grey, whose documentary “Extraordinary Rendition” airs on PBS stations this week, told me: “I, like many journalists, should issue a correction, an apology really, because we all reported waterboarding as a simulated drowning. It is clear from those who did it, this is actual drowning … this is something that shocks the conscience and therefore is torture.”
In a remarkable demonstration of commitment to his job, former acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin, according to ABC News, underwent waterboarding when tasked by the White House to rework its official position on torture in 2004. Concluding that waterboarding is torture, he was forced out of his job.
On Monday, Nov. 5, anti-torture activists engaged in an actual demonstration of waterboarding outside the Department of Justice. Twenty-six-year-old actor Maboud Ebrahimzadeh volunteered to be the victim. After the session, he was near tears: “It is the most terrifying experience I have ever had. And although this is a controlled environment, when water goes into your lungs and you want to scream and you cannot, as soon as you do you will choke.”
Four retired military judge advocates general wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stating, “Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.” Twenty-four former intelligence agents and analysts agreed with the JAGs, adding, “Whether or not the practice is currently in use by U.S. intelligence, it should in fact be easy for him to respond.”
Yet Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know what’s involved in the technique, if waterboarding is torture.”
In the Judiciary hearing when the votes were cast, Leahy said: “No senator should abet this administration’s legalistic obfuscations by those such as Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and David Addington by agreeing that the laws on the books do not already make waterboarding illegal. We have been prosecuting water torture for more than 100 years.”
U.S. soldiers have been prosecuted for participating in waterboarding in the Philippines in 1901 and Vietnam in 1968. The U.S. imprisoned a Japanese officer in 1947 for using waterboarding against U.S. troops in World War II.
Sen. Edward Kennedy added: “Make no mistake about it: Waterboarding is already illegal under United States law. It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit ‘outrages upon personal dignity,’ including cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment. It is illegal under the Torture Act, which prohibits acts ‘specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’ It is illegal under the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.’ And it violates the Constitution.” He went on: “Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration-usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch, and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right, it is controlled death.”
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who voted for Mukasey’s confirmation, said Congress should pass a law forbidding waterboarding, having received assurances from Mukasey that he would uphold such a law. What if President Bush vetoed the law, or if he issued one of his signing statements used to sidestep bills he signs into law?
Despite all this, Schumer’s and Feinstein’s votes for Mukasey mean the Judiciary Committee has voted 11 to 8 to recommend his appointment as attorney general to the full Senate. From war funding to torture, you have to ask, If the Republicans were in the majority, would there be any difference?
Now only the full Senate can block Mukasey’s appointment. Maybe at least one senator will step up and filibuster the confirmation, just long enough for Mukasey to research and announce his opinion on whether waterboarding amounts to torture. If a U.S. citizen, soldier or official were waterboarded somewhere overseas, would Americans hesitate for a moment to call it torture? A filibuster might give the Mukasey supporters like Schumer and Feinstein pause to reconsider. For starters, they should talk to Henri Alleg.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America.
© 2007 Amy Goodman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)