Bush's risk of indictment for war crimes

Huffington Post is reporting that George Bush can't go to Switzerland because of the threat of legal action for ordering torture.

GENEVA, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Former U.S. President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday. . . .

Criminal complaints against Bush alleging torture have been lodged in Geneva, court officials say.

Human rights groups said they had intended to submit a 2,500-page case against Bush in the Swiss city on Monday for alleged mistreatment of suspected militants at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base in Cuba where captives from Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts in the so-called War on Terror were interned. . . .

[There is a growing movement] to hold Bush accountable for torture, including waterboarding. He has admitted in his memoirs and television interviews to ordering use of the interrogation technique that simulates drowning. . . .

Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch said:

"I'm surprised he (Bush) would even consider visiting a country that has ratified the torture convention and which takes its responsibilities seriously," said Brody.

"I think George Bush's world is a very small place at the moment," he said. "He may enjoy some kind of impunity in the United States, but other countries will not treat him so indulgently."

I understand why Obama declined to call for an investigation of this and other crimes and malfeasances of his predecessor. I have no interest in seeing Bush behind bars -- but it is abhorrent to me that history is being rewritten and that we will take no official action to deplore what was done in our name. At least this kind of action puts it in the historical record -- like the Chilcott Inquiry in Britain that has investigated how they wound up invading Iraq along with us.

Ralph

The risks of democracy

Most of us take living in a democracy for granted. As long as our elections are carried out fairly, we accept the results, even when our side loses.

It's a different matter in developing countries that do not have a democratic tradition. Egypt is but the latest example. Now that it seems certain that Mubarak's 30 year autocratic rule is at an end -- whether he leaves the country this week or drags it out a little longer -- the question arises: the people are crying for self-rule through democracy; but is the society ready for it?

Here we enter gray areas, multiple levels of gray areas. First, Mubarak argued that if he left now, chaos would be the result. Maybe, maybe not. But it's true there is no immediate organized group ready to take charge -- except the military. Which will probably be necessary as a transition, giving some time for free elections to be planned and carried out. There are indications that the Egyptian military (with whom we have a lot of influence) would be better than Mubarak's government trying to oversee the transition.

Looming on the fringes of the protest movement, but moving to become more central now, is the Muslim Brotherhood. And there are divided opinions about their intentions.

The conservatives, who want to see it all as black and white, paint the Brotherhood as all bad. An article in the conservative Washington Times cites a statement, reputedly quoting their "mission statement," saying that their work in North America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within. But the statement itself, citing "North America" suggests this may have nothing to do with the group in control of the Brotherhood in Egypt. And anything in the Washington Times is always suspect for objectivity.

What would be their role in Egyptian politics and governing bodies? As a different article in the New York Times points out,

"the Roman Catholic Church includes both those who practice leftist liberation theology and conservative anti-abortion advocates, so the Brotherhood includes both practical reformers and firebrand ideologues. Which of those tendencies might rise to dominance in a new Egypt is under intense discussion inside the Obama administration."

We are fortunate to have the Obama administration, and Obama himself, in charge of our policy at this time, rather than a George W. Bush or a John McCain. Obama appreciates the complexity of the situation and has spoken with caution as this stunning political revolution takes shape.

Just as happened when Palestinians had elections and Hamas won such a sizable representation, we have to live with the results of free elections. Otherwise, we are saying we only support democracy when it goes our way -- which is not truly supporting democracy.

Hamas likewise has complex, multiple identities. Those who can see beyond the black/white surface know that it was the benevolent, social services providing Hamas that people voted for, not the militant jihadist Hamas.

So, too, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has its two sides. So far in this popular uprising, it seems not to be leading it so much as positioning itself to take part in the political process, hoping to win a sizable representation in a new government. Everyone seems to agree that the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge from this as a powerful political force in Egypt. If they renounce violence, accept the rule of law, and endorse democracy, then they should be welcomed into a representative new government -- as the Obama administration is saying.

Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institute said: “If we really want democracy in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be a big part of the picture. . . . Rather than demonizing them, we ought to start engaging them now." The New York Times article continues:

American politicians and pundits have used the Brotherhood as a sort of boogeyman, tagging it as a radical menace and the grandfather of Al Qaeda. That lineage is accurate in a literal sense: some Qaeda leaders . . . have roots in the organization. But Qaeda leaders despise the Brotherhood because it has renounced violence and chosen to compete in elections.

The Brotherhood's deep hostility to Israel, which also reflects majority opinion in Egypt, presents one of the most difficult challenges for U. S. policy, along with its views on the rights of women and of religious minorities.

Another view is based in the fact that the Brotherhood was founded to promote social reformation by Islamic principles of preaching, outreach and the provision of social services to the people. Carrie Wickham, a political science professor at Emory and author of a 2002 book on Egypt and the Brotherhood, puts it this way: “It’s roughly analogous to the evangelical Christian goal of sharing the gospel. Politics were secondary.”

So, there is the dilemma. The Brotherhood will undoubtedly play a role in post-Mubarak Egyptian government. Will it be as a responsible partner or will it seek to take over? Was their past violence due to the repressive regime against which they were struggling? In a democracy would they be different? One of their leaders said, not long before the massive protests began, that they did not seek to monopolize power. “We want an atmosphere for fair competition now that can allow us to compete for power in the future. . . .And we want stability and freedom for people, not chaos."

Are we willing to trust that and allow a democratic process to evolve? Do we have any choice?

Ralph

Senate defeats repeal

By a vote of 47 to 51 along party lines, the Senate defeated a motion to repeal the entire health care reform law.

So what is the meaning of those Republicans who voted for the law last year and now voted to repeal it this year?

Politics? A safe vote, knowing it would be defeated even with their vote, so they can have it both ways, for political expediency? Or some back-room dealing within the GOP caucus? Promise of party support in re-election campaigns?

It's enough to make someone a bit cynical about how our laws get made. The needs of the people must be pretty far down on the priority list.

Ralph

"You are requires to purchase . . . " #2

Republicans have found the issue in the health care reform bill that taps into an issue virtually defining liberals and conservatives: the proper role of government and whether it can force people to purchase health insurance.

There's a campaign quote from candidate Obama floating around to the effect that "forcing people to get health insurance would be like trying to solve homelessness by passing a law making people buy a house." That was then; now he has seen that insurance affordability depends on spreading the risk, with everybody contributing to the pool. Otherwise, the sick want it and the healthy ones delay -- so costs go up.

There are two ways to make this happen: (1) require everyone to buy insurance (and give financial assistance to those who can't afford it, which the current new law does) or (2) give everyone insurance and pay for it with taxes.

Conservatives are resisting the former, claiming it's unconstitutional; they would resist the latter, claiming it's socialism. They're calling it that anyway. So, fine. Raising taxes is not unconstitutional -- just un-Republican.

Just do it.

Ralph

"You are required to purchase . . . "

Two federal judges have now declared that part of the health care reform bill is unconstitutional, and two judges have declared that it is not. Obviously, the U. S. Supreme Court will be called upon to settle this.

Those who claim it is unconstitutional say it is so because the government cannot require citizens to purchase insurance.

But governments require people to purchase auto insurance.

Yes, but you can avoid that simply by not owning an automobile. You don't have to purchase auto insurance.

So, if you didn't have a body, maybe you wouldn't be required to purchase health insurance?

But then what about this? Kennesaw, GA requires each head of household to maintain a firearm and ammunition.

If it's unconstitutional for the government to force people to buy health insurance, why isn't it unconstitutional to require them to own a gun and ammunition?

Perhaps it is -- but since it's not enforced (only about 50% own guns), how could anyone bring suit claiming they were forced to buy a gun? The city just likes to brag about it -- it's their claim to fame and publicity.

Ralph

Hillary Clinton

I wrote so much that was critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign that I want to say how much I admire the job she is doing as Secretary of State.

She seems knowledgeable about what's going on all over the world and our relationship with the various trouble spots. She seems tireless in traveling the globe and meeting with foreign leaders. There have been no serious gaffes that I know of, and she seems increasingly respected wherever she goes.

And this morning -- she taped back to back interviews for all five Sunday morning talk shows (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox) about the situation in Egypt. Her statement seemed just right -- stressing our commitment to true and free democratic elections and institution of needed reforms, but not denouncing the current leadership or taking sides. Our commitment, she says, is to an orderly transition to a "real democracy." What we don't want is for "radical idealogues to take control a very large and important country in the Middle East."

We're in a position that needs to be carefully balanced (and characteristically hothead McCain was on TV saying Obama wasn't being bold enough). Mubarek has been way too autocratic and suppressed real democracy in his country, but he has been an important ally in helping to stabilize the Arab world and middle east tensions. We also have a great interest in seeing that his replacement (either now by his going into exile or by elections in the fall) is someone who will continue that stability, rather than have Egypt taken over by an extremist group.

Hillary's message this morning was right on target in that delicate balance.

Brava, Madam Secretary !!

Ralph

More negative effects of (some) religions

OK. To be more specific, I should say "some religious people," not necessarily the religion itself. However, those religious people usually use selected quotations from their scriptures, which they take literally, as authority for their views.

What prompts me to take up this topic on this Sunday morning? Having just written about the U.S. evangelicals who stirred up anti-gay hatred by preaching their biblical view of the evils of homosexual people, and then seeing the following news item about one of Georgia's Congressman.

Jack Kingston (R-GA) was interviewed by Bill Maher and said this about evolution:

"I believe I came from God, not from a monkey so the answer is no. . . . I don't believe that a creature crawled out of the sea and became a human being one day."

One day? And a creature changed from a fish to a human, in one day?

Either Kingston is grandstanding for his conservative base, or he is woefully ignorant about evolution. This is a cartoonist's version of evolution. But it's the version that so many preachers, ignorant themselves, perpetuate on the malleable minds of their flocks. Polls show that those who attend church weekly are more likely to believe in strict creationism -- and in the more fundamental churches, that caricature version is what is held up to ridicule and derision.

Reinforced daily by the right-wing radio ranters -- it's shouldn't be surprising (but is still dismaying) that 57% of Republicans believe in "creationism" as described in #3 below; even 34% of Democrats and Independents agree. Here are the actual questions posed:

A Gallop poll asked people to choose which most closely described their belief:

1. Humans beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.

2. Humans beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.

3. God created humans beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

Not in its poll questions, but in its web site discussion of the results, Gallop refers to the three options as: #1 "theistic evolution," #2 "secular evolution," and #3 "creationism."

Framed that way, the choices are a far cry from Kingston's caricature of "crawled out of the sea and became a human being one day."

Rather than dismay at woeful ignorance and religiosity, however, perhaps we should look at two positive (from my point of view) trends. There is direct correlation between level of education and belief in secular evolution: 9% for high school or less, 25% for postgraduate education.

And that has increased over time. In 1982, 9% overall chose secular evolution; today 16%.

Both ignorance and extreme religious literalism are best combated by education.

Ralph

Homophobic murder in Uganda #3

Tucson and Uganda have a lot in common: murders of public figures and the question of how much hate speech inspired the killers.

In Tucson, a young man, obviously severely mentally ill, did the shooting. Despite the climate of hate and the violent metaphors in political speech, it appears that his motives were primarily his own psychotic thoughts, not a political ideology.

Still, did the violence in the air have some non-specific effect, permissive if not outright encouraging to take action? "Don't retreat; reload?" It's nearly impossible to know.

In Uganda, it seems likely to be very different, although here too the officials are claiming that the murder was done by robbers, not anti-gay vigilantes responding to hate speech. This article from the New York Times based on a December 2009 interview with David Kato, the Uganda's most most prominent gay activist, suggests a different view.

At the time [of the interview], December 2009, Uganda’s Parliament was considering whether gay people should be executed. A Ugandan politician had crafted legislation, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, after a visit from American evangelicals who advocated a program to “cure” homosexuality. The evangelicals later disavowed any intent to inspire the bill.

In fact, as soon as it was put forward, many human rights groups were forecasting what would happen next. They said that just the notion of the government’s seriously considering the death penalty for gay people would spur lynch mobs and spell open season on Uganda’s gays.

Last October, a Ugandan newspaper published a diatribe against homosexuals with Mr. Kato’s picture, and another, on the front page under the words: “Hang Them.” On Wednesday, he was attacked in his home during the day and beaten to death with a hammer. The police called it a robbery. Mr. Kato’s friends were emphatic: He was killed because he was gay. . . .

Uganda . . . doesn’t feel like an especially intolerant place. Most people here seem free to say what they want, even regarding President Yoweri Museveni, who has been in power 25 years straight.

But beneath the mild surface is an intensely strong current of religion. And in March 2009, the American evangelicals came to Uganda to discuss what they called “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda,” and to assert that gay men often sodomized teenage boys.

Many Ugandans have told me that gay people, historically, had been tolerated in their villages. Perhaps they were looked at a little differently, but they were not viewed as a threat. But now, that had changed.

The Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who attended the antigay meetings, said the Americans had underestimated the homophobia. “They didn’t know that when you speak about destroying the family to Africans, the response is a genocide,” he said. “The moment you speak about the family, you speak about the tribe, you speak about the future. Africans will fight to the death. When you speak like that, you invite the wrath.”

Don Schmierer, one of the evangelicals who visited in 2009, called Mr. Kato’s death “horrible” and said, “Naturally, I don’t want anyone killed, but I don’t feel I had anything to do with that.” He added, “I don’t spread hate.”

On Friday, Mr. Kato was buried in his home village. Several hundred attended, including a priest who told the mourners to repent. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill is still being discussed and may become law this year.

Re-read the quote from Rev. Kaoma: "They didn't know that when you speak about destroying the family to Africans, the response is genocide." This captures the problem. When Sarah Palin uses gun metaphors, they are just part of her daily life (or so she would have us believe, although some have questioned, after watching her hunting moose on her TV special about Alaska, how much she really knows about how to shoot a gun).

But to others, with different experiences of guns, it incites different feelings and associations. When you have someone unknowingly trampling into the culture -- or the mental illness -- of another, you may trigger an effect you never intended.

Speech is powerful. David Kato told the Times interviewer that, after he held Uganda's first gay rights news conference several years ago, police officers had broken his arm and cracked him in the nose. "He talked fast, constantly scanning the darkness. He struck me as clearly brave and deeply frightened."

And now he is dead -- as predicted and as feared. And so are six people in Tucson. Neither the right-wingers nor the evangelicals intended for anyone to die. But words of hatred and violence often have horrible unintended consequences.

Ralph