Chile and human rights

Chile becomes the final country in S. America to ratify the Rome Statute. Among other things, this brings Chile in line with the international community on human rights norms involving genocide and crimes against humanity.

Read More...

Summary only...

Michael Jackson's Uncensored Obituary

Michael Jackson’s sudden death has drawn the world’s attention all at once onto him likely for the last time. Michael Jackson was unquestionably one of the most famous and admired music icons of the modern world, sharing that pantheon only with a few (e.g. Elvis Presley, The Beatles or Madonna, come to mind). He was a prodigy: a massive-media, pop-culture version of Mozart, only deeply admired worldwide by the rich and the poor alike. And while I understand the fans’ admiration, I myself never was one of his followers. Perhaps because of the objectivity this might confer me, throughout the course of Michael Jackson’s life I couldn’t help the feeling of pity for him. For while Michael Jackson is the prototype of the music idol, whom all the kids and teenagers (and sometimes even a little older ones) imitate and see as the role model, for this very reason he also is an example of the worst abominations of our times. Because he is the pinnacle of modern fame, he also exemplifies in the worst form possible how public attention can corrode a human being.

Michael Jackson was a great pop musician and dancer but he was also a victim of his time. Physically and psychologically Michael Jackson was a freak. He was an eternal child trapped in childish dreams completely unable to understand a world that worshipped him. Now everybody remembers him but only a few days ago he was alone, locked in his Neverland world. In reality, this was not just a bad ending, it was also a bad beginning. Michael Jackson was alone for most of his life incapable of leading a normal life behind the scenes. But this was not the fault of his family and friends. Nor was it his own fault—how could it be, if he never had a choice? Again, Michael Jackson is a product of his times, the result of the unconditional love and admiration of millions who followed him since he was a boy. His case should give us food for thought regarding the values of modern society and the relentless aspiration to fame. Goodbye Michael, may you find peace finally.

Read More...

Summary only...

death of the Washington Post

I used to read the Washington Post because of its good coverage of Guantanamo and detainee treatment. But I just heard (been tucked away in a technology-free zone) about its firing of Dan Froomkin and well that spells the death of the WaPost for me.

As usual, Glenn Greenwald has some insightful points to make on a topic he writes about quite often. In short: Froomkin was too much of a real journalist for the Washington Post's editorial board to handle, because according to it, the function of journalism is to cater to the prevailing political masters.

Read More...

Summary only...

Yoo civil lawsuit allowed to proceed

See here. Also, see the Washington Post's editorial criticizing the decision. Its argument is summed up by the following:

Moreover, Mr. Yoo provided legal opinions on what he believed the law allowed the executive to do, but he did not make the final policy decisions. Allowing Mr. Padilla's case to proceed could have a chilling effect on the ability of government lawyers to give candid, good-faith advice for fear of being held personally liable.

I've addressed the distinction between advice and policy here. In Yoo's case, that distinction doesn't apply in the usual way, and the Washington Post's editorial is, once again, an utter failure.

Read More...

Summary only...

New York, 3rd World State

I have vast experience in 3rd World politics and can testify that the spectacle we have witnessed in the New York State Senate this week easily matches the worst episodes of corruption I have known about in Latin America or Africa. Two Democratic senators were apparently "persuaded" by a tycoon (who is not even part of the senate or any political party but who recently financed some important democratic state campaigns) to defect from the Democratic party allowing Republicans to seize control of the closely divided chamber.

This billionaire patron was indignant at the Democratic majority because of their plan to raise taxes on the rich to compensate the spiraling state deficit. Unable to deter them from going ahead with their plan, he opted for the healthy alternative of inviting a couple of senators with God knows what incentives to move to the opposite party.

In case this is not fishy enough, one of the defecting senators had been drawn to the Democratic side not long ago with promises of power and protection from the countless charges of corruption that he has faced lately. The other defecting senator was recently indicted with charges of having stabbed his companion.

You gotta wonder what the heck is going on in New York. The current governor, David Paterson, replaced the elected governor, Eliot Spitzer, who resigned last year after being linked to a prostitution ring. Like in the worst crooks movies, New York politics seems to be dominated by an underworld of corruption and personal interest. Democrats have taken legal measures against the Republican coup and a judge is set to deliberate on the issue next week. Whatever the outcome of this mess, the situation illustrates the need to clean the sordid political landscape of New York State as soon as possible.

Read More...

Summary only...

Boumediene 2: Bush 0

This is what Lakhdar Boumediene's homemade t-shirt reads, as related in his recent interview with ABC News. It refers to his two victories over the morally bankrupt Bush administration who willfully and needlessly kept him at Guantanamo for 7 years. The first victory was SCOTUS's judgment in Boumediene v. Bush which enabled him to get judicial review. The other was U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon's decision to free him upon reviewing the 'thin reed' of evidence the administration had against him.

Boumediene makes the following remarkable statement about the duration of his detainment:

"The first month, okay, no problem, the building, the 11 of September, the people, they are scared, but not 7 years. They can know whose innocent, who's not innocent, who's terrorist, who's not terrorist," he said.

"I give you 2 years, no problem, but not 7 years."

It's remarkably generous to offer 2 years of your life for a gross mistake (assuming that it's just that), especially given the credible charge of being tortured whilst incarcerated. But leaving that aside, Boumediene's point should strike a mortal blow to any proponent of executive privilege who wants to assert that the executive is better qualified than any other branch of government to handle matters of war--a standard talking point for the right. After 7 years, the executive could not (or would not) determine Boumediene's innocence. On the other hand, it took Judge Leon only 5 months after Boumediene v Bush to sift through all the evidence and render his judgment (PDF file). In which institution would you place more trust?

Read More...

Summary only...

Berlusconi's Innocent Villa

After Veronica Lario, Belusconi's wife, filed for divorced accusing him of shameless sexual corruption, Italian paparazzi caught the Italian president enjoying an "innocent" afternoon (as he himself referred to the pictures) with some of his friends (here).

Read More...

Summary only...

On American Ignorance

An interesting article on a topic we've visited before.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Morality of Obama's Guantanamo Plan

No doubt Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo Base prison is a step forward in fighting the threat of terrorism. Dick Cheney resents this fact for it entails that his own decisions were steps backward. But at this point who cares what Cheney says other than his reactionary cronies? After all, Cheney’s arguments do not pass a minimum test of cogency and vision. Nonetheless Obama’s plan brings to the surface a fundamental question that had been overshadowed by the numerous obscenities of the Bush administration. This is the question of preemptive incarceration.

Obama’s plan consists in transferring Guantanamo detainees to maximum-security prisons within the US borders but it does not include a discernible answer for the legal abominations these cases represent. During the presidential campaign, McCain warned Obama of the intricacies the new president was going to find once he had access to classified information on the Guantanamo detainees. And for all his gaffes, the facts seem to confirm McCain’s forecast. For what was once determination in Obama to close Guantanamo has now turned into feeble compromise. Barring an unexpected change of course, it seems that Obama’s plan is only symbolic vindication: Guantanamo detainees will be transferred to American soil but kept in the legal limbo they’ve dwelled for years.

God knows what information Obama and his legal advisors have come across in revising the Guantanamo cases. But I think it unlikely that anything short of imminent danger for the country would have persuaded Obama of the need to continue with this legal farce. So let’s suppose for the sake of the argument that Guantanamo detainees represent an imminent threat to the US. If they had not yet committed any punitive action, is it lawful and/or moral to restrain them?

Here we find the two traditional frameworks in philosophy of punishment giving opposite advice. According to the Utilitarian framework, punishment is morally justified by its beneficial consequences. Utilitarians typically mention the incapacitation of the offender as among these consequences. Thus it would appear permissible, according to this framework, to incarcerate an individual on the sole grounds that he or she represents a threat for the US.

The alternative to the Utilitarian framework is Retrubitivism. Roughly, Retributivism is the view that punishment is justified by an abstract balance representing our sense of justice. When somebody breaks the law he or she has upset that balance and punishment is required in order to restore it. It straightforwardly follows from this view that we are justified in punishing only those who have broken the law. Therefore, restraining Guantanamo detainees would be wholly immoral even if they are indeed a threat to the country and we know it, for they have yet to act on their impure intentions.

It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to adjudicate between these competing frameworks. Generations of philosophers have passed unable to do so. However, it is fair to say that even many Utilitarians, while rejecting the whole Retributive package, accept the idea that only the guilty should be punished. Guantanamo detainees cannot be guilty of anything yet as they have been denied the nowadays luxury of a due process. And having bad intentions is not recognized as a crime by any legal code. As a consequence, it seems really hard to reconcile Obama’s Guantanamo plan with any accepted morality of punishment.

Politicians are not only beholden to such abstractions as justice but also to their country. It seems therefore unlikely that Obama (or anybody for that matter) is going to clean this mess. No doubt politicians in positions of power have a responsibility to protect their country. But more importantly, the American electorate is extremely sensitive to the issue. Republicans have traditionally exploited the issue of national security to a point of absurdity. And Cheney as well as the Republican minority in Congress have made it clear that they will continue to pound it. This leaves the Obama administration with no margin to correct the abominations created by Republicans themselves.

As Nancy Pelosi has lately insisted, there is an important distinction to be drawn between those who caused this state of affairs and those who have failed to straighten it. There can be no doubt that Republicans fall in the former category and thus carry most of the responsibility for jeopardizing the Constitution of the US. However, they also carry some of the responsibility for politicizing the problem now in the hands of the new administration blocking any conceivable solution for it. As Eugene Robinson suggests, in history books hundreds of years from now Republicans will have to be charged with the decline of the US.

Read More...

Summary only...

Advice, policy and action

One major line of defense John Yoo offers for his role in torture relies on the distinction between advice and policy (authority to prescribe action). (See the prepared statement he made before his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in 2008).

The thought is that setting policy, but not giving advice, is related to action in a responsibility determining way. This is because policy not only endorses an action (as right/wrong, viable/unviable, legal/illegal), it motivates by being the reason for the action. In short, policy can be a constitutive part of an action which depends on it; it is the reason which explains the action. This connection explains why we tend to believe that if an action like torturing someone is wrong, then the authoritative policy which directly calls for it is also wrong.

On the face of it, advice is different. In an advisory role, the content of the advice is not taken to have motivational force. Additionally, I may not be advising you to do anything in particular but rather just laying out what I take to be your options. This is what John Yoo claims of his legal advice: it merely laid out an interpretation of legal options, and it was neither his intent nor within his authority to prescribe which options, if any, are to be taken. Yoo claims it follows that he cannot be held liable for the actions of those who were directed by policy to act in accordance with such advice. This is because, we can say, a ‘responsibility’ gap exists between advice and action, the gap filled by an independent judgment as to whether to follow the advice. So, if someone must be held accountable for the torture, it should be those who formulated the policy and carried it out. They have a direct responsibility bearing relationship to the vicious act.

Let’s examine the claim about advice. When someone asks for practical advice, it implies that he has not made up his mind on what to do. Typically, upon being offered a piece of practical advice, the advisee deliberates, takes the advice into consideration among all the other known considerations, and arrives at a decision about what to do. The process of deliberation arguably makes the advisee solely responsible for the ultimate decision. Plausibly, this shields the advisor from responsibility.

However, the conclusions are different when the advisor has practical authority over his advisee. Usually we distinguish between contexts of advice and authority, because advice is not often taken to be authoritative, but this is not a conceptual point, but rather just an expression of how we talk. When someone has practical authority over another, his pronouncements/directives/assertions possess preemptory status among the other reasons the advisee may have. That is, whatever other reasons the advisee may have, they are overruled (and are taken to be overruled) by the authority. In this context, when an advisor makes a pronouncement, he understands it to constrain and/or function as a sufficient reason for action.

What was the context in which Yoo wrote the OLC memo? As Yoo himself notes in his testimony before the Committee, his advice was requested in a very particular context: whether the recently (at the time) captured Abu Zubaydah could be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, given that such techniques, so Yoo claimed, would be extremely helpful to and desired by the executive.

But the relationship between executive and the OLC is not one of desire satisfaction, it is the latter’s job to constrain the actions of the former. This is confirmed by the particular institutional role the OLC occupies within the executive branch. The following statement from the OLC ‘best practices’ statement is relevant:

“Our Office is frequently called upon to address issues of central importance to the functioning of the federal Government, and, subject to the President’s authority under the Constitution, OLC opinions are controlling on questions of law within the Executive Branch” (emphasis added).

That is, should there be any dispute on how to understand (and hence how to obey) a law, OLC memos are preemptory. This applies to everyone in the executive branch, including the President.

This undermines John Yoo’s basic defense. Although his advice did not take the form of policy, it went beyond the typical function of advice to supply mere considerations for deliberation. Due to the institutional authority granted to him, his advice took on an imperative like form.

Given his knowledge of the advisee’s motivations (we already know of the ‘principals meetings’ during which this whole cabal got together to discuss strategies to implement torture), Yoo’s affirming advice must be recognized to be motivational—and hence a part of the advisee’s decision to formulate the torture policy. This is what makes him culpable for his advice.

Read More...

Summary only...