Your Free, All-Expenses Paid Visit to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba!

I wrote this a few months ago. Sorry for the re-runs, but I am dealing with a few personal issues right now, and the article is still relevant.

--------------------------------------------

Last week, U.S. Army officials released a 25 year old Swedish man from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to officials, he was released because they he was longer believed to be a threat to the United States. After his release, Mehdi Ghezali said in an interview with Dagens Nyheter daily and Swedish public radio that he had been tortured by exposure to extreme cold, loud noise and bright lights, and that he had been chained during his stay.

Now, Ghezali’s accusations have been neither confirmed nor denied by the Pentagon, and whether or not you believe him is up to you. Here is the part that really gets me though. The United States Government held this man for two and a half years, without evidence of a crime, or a court order. Ghezali was not afforded an attorney, nor did he have his day in court. Most importantly, this man was guilty of nothing.

According to Ghezali, he went to Pakistan in August of 2001, before the attacks of September 11th. He was visiting a friend in Afghanistan just across the border when news of the invasion reached him. He heard that villagers were rounding up foreigners and selling them to U.S. forces. He decided to return to Pakistan, but after crossing the border he was seized by Pakistani villagers and turned in to Pakistani police. He arrived in Guantanamo Bay in January of 2002.

Ghezali claims that after he arrived in Guantanamo, he cooperated with interrogators for six months. He stopped because interrogators kept asking the same questions. That’s when he said the torture began. "They put me in the interrogation room and used it as a refrigerator. They set the temperature to minus degrees so it was terribly cold and one had to freeze there for many hours -- 12 to 14 hours one had to sit there, chained," he said. According to Ghezali, interrogators also used sleep deprivation, flashes of bright light, and loud music as torture. This continued until his release, last week.

As a nation founded on liberty and justice, we have to ask ourselves how we could allow something like this to happen. Even without the allegations of torture, to capture and hold an innocent man for two and a half years is simply unacceptable. Had this man been granted an attorney and a trial by jury, his case could have been quickly disposed of, and he could have been released within a period of months. Instead, Mehdi Ghezali was the lucky winner of a free, all-expenses paid visit to sunny Guantanamo Bay!

I understand that terrorists must be stopped, and that total civilian review of every military decision would greatly impede the war on terror. However, we can not permit situations such as this in our society. To hold Ghezali and other Guantanamo detainees only in the shadowy realm of military justice and not the civil courts of our society is wrong. It permits situations like this to emerge, and we can not accept this, regardless of the danger from terrorists.

If we allow fear of terrorism to affect our sense of justice and liberty, the values we hold most dear, then the terrorists have already won, even without killing any more Americans. They will have killed America herself, the values and institutions that we have always stood for.

America’s War on Drugs: Is an End in Sight?

It’s an unfortunate fact that in today’s society, to advocate legalization of marijuana carries a certain taboo. People believe that the only believers in drug legalization are druggies themselves, and too quickly dismiss drug legalization as a preposterous alternative to our current system. Legalization, they claim, would result in countless addicts, meth-houses, crack-babies, drug-lords, and social chaos - but that’s what we have now too.

But that’s not all we have. United States drug policy forces drugs onto the black market, by eliminating supply, but not demand. The high demand, coupled with the relative ease in production and transport of drugs, and a government granted monopoly, creates a gold mine of opportunity for those willing to operate outside of the law. By forcing drugs onto the black market, the war on drugs dramatically inflates prices and profits - profits that go directly to the pockets of criminals and terrorists. Everyone has seen the TV ad’s that explain the relationship between Drugs and Terror, charging that America is funding a war against itself. It’s true, our addictions do fund actions such as 9/11 and the Madrid Bombings, but only because of our refusal to allow drugs to be sold by legitimate and trustworthy sources.

The whole question really comes back to that of supply and demand. The misguided notion that we can hope to eliminate drug use by eliminating it’s supply but not it’s demand is foolish and impractical. Where ever a demand exists, a supply will find a way. Whether terrorists and drug lords import heroin and crack cocaine from Afghanistan, or a local derelict cooks up a batch of meth from ingredients bought at his local Wallgreens, a supply will emerge to fill the demand. A CATO institute study put it this way, “The tragic irony is that… the War on Drugs has failed completely to halt the influx of cocaine and heroin, both of which are cheaper, purer, and more abundant than ever.” Like it or not, we are simply incapable of completely eliminating drugs within our borders.

Not only is the drug prohibition impractical, it is an affront to the beliefs and traditions this country was founded upon. Non-violent, non-aggressive recreational drug users are being locked up everyday, and drug users who have managed their usage in a manner that harms no one but themselves, deserve the privilege and the right to make their own life decisions. The government should stay out of the business of protecting us from ourselves, because in the end it only tramples on the ordinary people of America. The War on Drugs is not a war on marijuana, heroin, speed, or crack, it’s a war on drug users and a war on American citizens, being fought in our own back yard. The real victims in this war are you and me, citizens who have had our rights infringed upon, as big brother tries to do what is “right” for all of us.

Imagine the alternative, a society in which drugs are legally available for recreational users, and drug-lords, gangs and terrorists are out of the picture. It would be a society in which we once again are safe from the hand of overbearing government, and also safe from the threat of terror. Admittedly, there would be problems. Drugs are not safe, they are not good. Now, however they would be under the supervision of government regulators, being sold by shopkeepers, and not terrorists. Now we would be free to address the root of the problem, the demand. Addicts would feel safer coming for help, and doctors would be able to treat drug addiction. We would educate our kids, and hope they make the right decision, but in the end, they would be free to make their own decisions. That’s what great about our country. Freedom. Let’s make sure that freedom isn’t the biggest casualty in the War on Drugs.

Class Action Reform Draws Flak From Democratic Leadership

Although passed by a bipartisan 72-26 vote in the Senate, President Bush's lawsuit reform bill has been criticized by the Democratic Leadership as, "hurting consumers and helping corporations avoid liability for misconduct."

The bill moves jurisdiction over multistate class action suits from state courts to their federal counterparts. Some have claimed that because federal courts are less receptive to large class action suits than state courts, this legislation hurts the ability of consumers to bring suit against large corporations.

The logic here is flawed. Just because some state courts have given out large awards doesn't make their rulings fair. And in large multistate cases, jurisdiction clearly must fall into federal hands.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn.) explained just exaclty why the Democratic argument is flawed. He said that the bill is "designed to rein in the lawsuit abuses, and it does just that. A plaintiff may end up in federal court, yes, rather instead of state court, but no citizen will lose his or her right to bring a case."

This legislation artificially caps neither the number of suits nor the damages these suits award in any way. The only difference between the two is that in general federal courts have been less prone to granting extravagant awards and finding high punitive damages.

So the question really is which court is granted jurisdiction. Arguments for both sides can be made, however the very nature of multistate suits place them beyond the jurisdiction of any one state court, and into the realm of federal courts.

And regardless of the tendencies of each court to rule in a certain way, jurisdiction for these suits should rest solely in the federal arena.

New Visions From California

Anyone heard from Arhnold lately? Here is a great article from Georte Will about Schwarzenegger's Red-State reform efforts in the very Blue-State of California.

Quite frankly, I'm impressed. For a man that everyone thought was vastly unprepared for office, Schwarzenegger has a Reaganesque feel for political leadership and vision. Among his pet issues...
- Merit based performance pay for teachers
- Privately managed 401(k) retirement accounts for state employees
- Mandatory across the board spending cuts to prevent state deficit
- End of redistricting to favor incumbents by moving the process to a panel of retired judges

Schwarzenegger has met strong resistance from the old guard California Legislature. In true Schwarzenegger form, he plans to launch four initiatives to bypass the legislature and send his proposals directly to the people. He plans on winning too, even though he believes that he may be outspent by a 4 to 1 margin, he believes strongly that he can pass his legislation.

If he achieves his goals, he will enter history as one of California's most revolutionary governors and could potentially put California back into play for many other political races - including the presidential one.

Not bad for an immigrant who was "unqualified" to be govenor.

Clinton Agrees With "Looming Insolvency" In Social Security Program

This Wednesday, Deputy White House Cheif of Staff and veteran Bush advisor Carl Rove commented on the courage required of former President Clinton to support President Bush's claim that Social Security faced major solvency problems.

Rove's comments are misleading - he refers to comments Clinton made years ago, but his point is still valid. Democratic opposition to social security reform is not as "solid" as Harry Reid would have us believe. It was Al Gore who first proposed the social security "lockbox" - Social Security reform has been an issue since long before the Bush administration. Democratic attempts to paint Social Security problems as overhyped will meet with with failure simply because for so many Democrats have admitted the solvency issues within social security.

Bush may not get everything he wants in a social security reform package, but in order to mount an effective resistance to Bush's initiative, they have to begin by admitting that social security does have serious problems. If they don't, Bush will have more than enough ammunition to slaughter them in 2006.

Political Battle Could Go Nuclear Over High Court Appointments

I read an interesting article today at over at the Carpetbagger Report concerning the brewing political battles over Bush's court appointees over the next four years.

According to several of their sources, Carpetbagger claims that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is considering revising Senate rules to disallow the filibuster of executive appointees. Insiders have begun to refer to this option as the 'nuclear' option - because it would destroy what little bipartisan support still remains in the Senate.

While I very strongly believe that each nominee deserves an up or down vote, my gut instinct is to grab Frist by the shoulders and yell, "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?"

Rewriting Senate rules to favor the majority party, and creating such a bitter and hateful attitude on the hill is the wrong way to go. Frist needs to reach out to moderate Senate Democrats like Zell Miller (D-Ga.) who might be willing to side with Republicans to override a Democratic filibuster.

Another problem with Frist's approach is the strong possibility that several key Republicans like John McCain and Arlen Specter might break off and vote against rule change. Even if he is mad enough to try the 'nuclear' option, he may simply lack the votes to do it.

Nevertheless, with the imminent retirement of William Rehnquist, the current Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court, both Democrats and Republicans face extraordinary challenges in the upcoming legislative session. Whether or not Frist goes 'nuclear' remains to be seen, but regardless, the conventional political warfare will be just as intense.

Religious Right-Wing Bans Low Riders

Come on now. This is why I left the Republican party. Virginia's House of Delegates Tuesday authorized $50 fine for a PDU. (Public Display of Underwear) Apparently some of the delegates find this new fashion trend offensive and are prepared to institute a state wide dress code to correct the perceived problem.

Virginia ACLU executive director Kent Willis, and Delegate Lionell Spruill argued against such a law, because they believe that this legislation would unfairly target blacks. Riiiiight...

Anyway, the bill passed by a vote of 60-34, and is now on its way for the state senate.

This is my question. Just exactly does the Virginia House of Delegates get off passing a state wide dress code? It's one thing to protect society from indecent exposure, but totally different to attempt to legislate away the evils of low riders.

Although most of his argument focused around the intentional targeting of blacks, (totally bogus by the way) Delegate Spruill did make a few good arguments. In his address to his fellow delegates, Spruill urged, "Remember, you were once young yourself... Please, let these kids express themselves. It will pass on. Don't fine these young kids. You had your time, let them have their time." A good argument, but his fellow delegates remained unswayed.

I hope that the Virginia State Senate has a little more restraint then the House of Delegates, or it seems that Virginia may have to go out and buy a belt.