Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Fighting the LAST War

One of the things stressed in my naval officers training courses in college was the hazard that military commands would make the dire mistake of fighting the last war rather than the present one. The classic example with which we were presented was the French defense of the Maginot Line -- a series of gun emplacements directed against any possible German invasion that it was thought would deter an attack. The Nazi Blitzkrieg tactics simply dropped parachutists behind these formidable gun emplacements who dropped explosives down their air vents, effectively disabling them and allowing a gap through which the Nazi tanks poured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

It should be pretty obvious now that the neocons, not particularly trained in military matters, are carrying out a game plan based on Cold War military dominance planning -- what worked for Reagan to bankrupt the Soviet system, must be the way to go in taking charge in the Middle East. That our current Secretary of State is a Sovietologist fits in neatly along with the Rumsfeld senility factor here and Bush's general lack of knowledge about much of anything apart from running a ball club and executing murderers in Texas. These guys (and gals) seem to think that the way to defeat terrorism is to attack a country to tempt the terrorists in where they can be properly dispatched by air power -- the next line of attack in Iraq according to Seymour Hersh.

Needless to say it did not work in Viet Nam and it is unlikely to work against the odd collections of factions that are using terrorism as a tactic to bedevil the neocons -- some Islamic extremists defending Islam against the 'born again' Bush holy crusade and others, nationalists, set on driving out the neo-colonialists apparently bent on taking over their oil resources once again.

Needless to say our military have blown it -- making us enemies rather than friends. There will be no incentives for the Iraqis whatever to do business down the line with us rather than the Russians or Chinese. The Bushies have pretty well smeared us with their torture routines now memorialized in living color on more than our own TV screens. And the Middle East, country by country, looks to be set up for chaos of various kinds thanks to our interventions.

Needless to say "staying" in any form looks to be less and less likely as a viable prospect. We are a nation apparently bent on bankrupting itself while our competitors watch the self-destruction process proceeding.

And so it all went.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Making the Harding Administration Look Pretty Good

[It is beginning to look as though we have quite a few candidates in or near the White House heading for an unpaid vacation in a nearby Federal penitentiary? It is hard to believe that Cheney did not know what Scooter Libby was up to. And Bush is not that innocent pussycat that he is sometimes portrayed to be. He is, after all, a YALE MAN knowledgeable about things and certainly not out of the loop of the plot to take Iraq by any pretense. It may take time and a change in political representation in the Congress, but I would not want to be any of these guys. War crimes I am quite sure must carry with them some pretty serious attendant indictment possibilities. Frank Rich more or less lays things out clearly below. Ed Kent]


Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt ...

By FRANK RICH
Published: November 27, 2005

GEORGE W. BUSH is so desperate for allies that his hapless Asian tour took him to Ulan Bator, a first for an American president, so he could mingle with the yaks and give personal thanks for Mongolia's contribution of some 160 soldiers to "the coalition of the willing." Dick Cheney, whose honest-and-ethical poll number hit 29 percent in Newsweek's latest survey, is so radioactive that he vanished into his bunker for weeks at a time during the storms Katrina and Scootergate.

The whole world can see that both men are on the run. Just how much so became clear in the brace of nasty broadsides each delivered this month about Iraq. Neither man engaged the national debate ignited by John Murtha about how our troops might be best redeployed in a recalibrated battle against Islamic radicalism. Neither offered a plan for "victory." Instead, both impugned their critics' patriotism and retreated into the past to defend the origins of the war. In a seasonally appropriate impersonation of the misanthropic Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life," the vice president went so far as to label critics of the administration's prewar smoke screen both "dishonest and reprehensible" and "corrupt and shameless." He sounded but one epithet away from a defibrillator.

The Washington line has it that the motivation for the Bush-Cheney rage is the need to push back against opponents who have bloodied the White House in the polls. But, Mr. Murtha notwithstanding, the Democrats are too feeble to merit that strong a response. There is more going on here than politics.

Much more: each day brings slam-dunk evidence that the doomsday threats marshaled by the administration to sell the war weren't, in Cheney-speak, just dishonest and reprehensible but also corrupt and shameless. The more the president and vice president tell us that their mistakes were merely innocent byproducts of the same bad intelligence seen by everyone else in the world, the more we learn that this was not so. The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a P.R. operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House. The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.

The cover-up is failing, however. No matter how much the president and vice president raise their decibel levels, the truth keeps roaring out. A nearly 7,000-word investigation in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times found that Mr. Bush and his aides had "issued increasingly dire warnings" about Iraq's mobile biological weapons labs long after U.S. intelligence authorities were told by Germany's Federal Intelligence Service that the principal source for these warnings, an Iraqi defector in German custody code-named Curveball, "never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so." The five senior German intelligence officials who spoke to The Times said they were aghast that such long-discredited misinformation from a suspected fabricator turned up in Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations and in the president's 2003 State of the Union address (where it shared billing with the equally bogus 16 words about Saddam's fictitious African uranium).

Right after the L.A. Times scoop, Murray Waas filled in another piece of the prewar propaganda puzzle. He reported in the nonpartisan National Journal that 10 days after 9/11, "President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."

The information was delivered in the President's Daily Brief, a C.I.A. assessment also given to the vice president and other top administration officials. Nonetheless Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney repeatedly pounded in an implicit (and at times specific) link between Saddam and Al Qaeda until Americans even started to believe that the 9/11 attacks had been carried out by Iraqis. More damning still, Mr. Waas finds that the "few credible reports" of Iraq-Al Qaeda contacts actually involved efforts by Saddam to monitor or infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups, which he regarded as adversaries of his secular regime. Thus Saddam's antipathy to Islamic radicals was the same in 2001 as it had been in 1983, when Donald Rumsfeld, then a Reagan administration emissary, embraced the dictator as a secular fascist ally in the American struggle against the theocratic fascist rulers in Iran.

What these revelations also tell us is that Mr. Bush was wrong when he said in his Veterans Day speech that more than 100 Congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraqi war resolution "had access to the same intelligence" he did. They didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief that Mr. Waas uncovered. They didn't have access to the information that German intelligence officials spoke about to The Los Angeles Times. Nor did they have access to material from a Defense Intelligence Agency report, released by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan this month, which as early as February 2002 demolished the reliability of another major source that the administration had persistently used for its false claims about Iraqi-Al Qaeda collaboration.
Skip to next paragraph

The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie? The situation recalls Mary McCarthy's explanation to Dick Cavett about why she thought Lillian Hellman was a dishonest writer: "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.' "

If Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney believe they were truthful in the run-up to the war, it's easy for them to make their case. Instead of falsely claiming that they've been exonerated by two commissions that looked into prewar intelligence - neither of which addressed possible White House misuse and mischaracterization of that intelligence - they should just release the rest of the President's Daily Briefs and other prewar documents that are now trickling out. Instead, incriminatingly enough, they are fighting the release of any such information, including unclassified documents found in post-invasion Iraq requested from the Pentagon by the pro-war, neocon Weekly Standard. As Scott Shane reported in The New York Times last month, Vietnam documents are now off limits, too: the National Security Agency won't make public a 2001 historical report on how American officials distorted intelligence in 1964 about the Gulf of Tonkin incident for fear it might "prompt uncomfortable comparisons" between the games White Houses played then and now to gin up wars.

SOONER or later - probably sooner, given the accelerating pace of recent revelations - this embarrassing information will leak out anyway. But the administration's deliberate efforts to suppress or ignore intelligence that contradicted its Iraq crusade are only part of the prewar story. There were other shadowy stations on the disinformation assembly line. Among them were the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, a two-man Pentagon operation specifically created to cherry-pick intelligence for Mr. Cheney's apocalyptic Iraqi scenarios, and the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), in which Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and the Cheney hands Lewis Libby and Mary Matalin, among others, plotted to mainline this propaganda into the veins of the press and public. These murky aspects of the narrative - like the role played by a private P.R. contractor, the Rendon Group, examined by James Bamford in the current Rolling Stone - have yet to be recounted in full.

No debate about the past, of course, can undo the mess that the administration made in Iraq. But the past remains important because it is a road map to both the present and the future. Leaders who dissembled then are still doing so. Indeed, they do so even in the same speeches in which they vehemently deny having misled us then - witness Mr. Bush's false claims about what prewar intelligence was seen by Congress and Mr. Cheney's effort last Monday to again conflate the terrorists of 9/11 with those "making a stand in Iraq." (Maj. Gen. Douglas Lute, director of operations for Centcom, says the Iraqi insurgency is 90 percent homegrown.) These days Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney routinely exaggerate the readiness of Iraqi troops, much as they once inflated Saddam's W.M.D.'s.

"We're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," the vice president said of his critics. "We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them." But according to a Harris poll released by The Wall Street Journal last Wednesday, 64 percent of Americans now believe that the Bush administration "generally misleads the American public on current issues to achieve its own ends." That's why it's Mr. Cheney's and the president's own words that are being thrown back now - not to rewrite history but to reveal it for the first time to an angry country that has learned the hard way that it can no longer afford to be without the truth.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]

White House Running fo Cover?

If the report below is on target -- and most of the Aljazeera reports are a few days ahead of our local ones -- the White House looks to have made an 180 degree turn about since the attack on Murtha.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9BDFE794-8F5E-45B3-8656-02F9B47DE850.htm


Let us hope. But the chaos over there may accelerate in other areas as well as Iraq. Terror reigns where we had a base in Uzbekistan. Lebanon could blow up again into civil war now that we have backed the Syrians out -- certainly the tensions seem once again to be moving in the south in the conflict with Israeli troops there. Where Iran will go is an open question? And I would not want to be left with Gaddafi as our big time ally in the Middle East! Jordan cannot be happy to have us palling around with Chalabi -- big time crook from their experience.

Let us hope that the Sharon move represents some sort of breaking of the log jam there?

2006 may prove to be an interesting year? Hopefully not in the traditional Chinese sense of the word!
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Ripping Off the Kids!

Things were far from perfect in my college days -- Jews and minorities were restricted (faculty and students) from admission to the Ivies and Seven Sisters; wealthy alumni/ae kids were welcomed aboard. But some of us could make it with full scholarships. CUNY had free tuition for those with good high school backgrounds (if not minorities and blue collar kids).

But I never heard of any student having to declare bankruptcy due to accumulated debts. We were not stuck with loans that both burdened our families and shaped our career futures so that we could pay them off. Textbooks were not a major profit item for Murdock types. Tuition was not being raised by our public institutions so as to exclude working part-timers and to burden others and their families barely getting by as is.

Everywhere one looks now the kids are being ripped off with future debts being stored up by various public agencies such as the NY Dormitory Authority which buys with long term bonds that are threatening the state's future economy and even basic maintenance of our superstructures (bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, etc.) while cutting basic services (Medicaid, housing and food subsidies -- even school lunches!) necessary to sustain life, let alone make it comfortable. Congress could not apparently care less with its drastic cut proposals along with tax reductions for those who do not need them.

One of the latest scams that really gets to me is that of our credit card operations (often the cause of student bankruptcies). Wherever one turns these offer pie in the sky (e.g. 0% interest which as soon as one commits can jump to whatever.). Occasional news reports give the grim details -- the family that suddenly finds its credit card balance jumped by 2 to 3 times the initial interest for no good reason except that the companies figure they have people hooked with balances that they cannot pay off quickly.

Easy to blame the victim with these. But what really disgusts me is that some of our academic institutions play along with the game. Two of mine have elected to sponsor two of the rip off offenders and have actually violated our privacy by handing out names and addresses from their alumni records. Columbia did this with MBNA (had a trustee member) and Yale just did so with Chase. We had an MBNA card which we got rid of when they boosted our rates -- we had built up a balance with medical bills. And Chase has just done the same. We are fortunate in being able to draw on other resources to get rid of these crooks. But too many of my students can not. They are the ones being ripped off.

A just Congress would step in and limit the rates that such credit thieves could charge and prevent them from upping interest for no other reason -- no late payment, no over the limit charges -- except the fact that their computers indicate that they may have a victim hooked with a large balance.

There must be some honest ones out there somewhere. I will spread the word if anyone can offer steers. We will switch to our CUNY credit union which is a nuisance, but at least is an operation about which we have some say.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Burning People? (2)

[A friend sent along a follow up on "Burning People?" I still can't comprehend how the American people can be so blythe about killing civilians in mass numbers, which is inevitable in Iraq as it was in Viet Nam where we simply unloaded bombs wherever when we could not complete a bombing mission due to weather conditions. Obviously scared soldiers are bound to shoot at whatever moves when they are under attack. The stories from Viet Nam were nightmarish of young mothers with newborns being blown to pieces at short range and we ended up with 300,000 undesirable discharges from that war -- drug addiction, hit superior officer, refused orders -- who were left to fend for themselves without support and often ended in jail, on the streets, or both. This war will see such mounting costs as well. With five times the number of the killed who are wounded physically and g-d knows how many psychologically messed up.

That is what war is. And our present leaders seem to be the ones that successfully avoided the last one, so do not know the costs. Ed Kent]

A minor but still important note on incendiary weapons, especially when used in firestorm tactics: They can kill also by asphyxiation, way beyond the reach of heat and flames.

The fires consume oxygen and the firestorm updrafts pull in air from surrounding areas. Also, the deadly gases produced by the combustion, especially carbon monoxide, can flow into areas not reached by the flames & heat.. Thus, even people in good shelters are at risk.

In ground level operations, the asphyxiation can be used to eliminate opposing forces who have fortified themselves or otherwise holed up. (A big risk in civilian areas is that non-combatants might be sheltering as well. But then, we aren't supposed to even think of that according to the chickenhawks playing tough guy warriors. As you may have guessed, I am not having an easy time being thankful for the current government, save that it could be worse.)

For what it's worth, Der Spiegel has a well done multimedia site regarding the Bombing of Dresden at

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,341327,00.html


The interactive map, although a high altitude view of the bombed city, has texts that indicate how the bombing campaign was done with the intent to kill many civilians rather than destroying strategic facilities. Area #15 is particular notable. It was the city's Grosser Garten park, which at the time had many refugees from earlier bombing. (Did the people think that taking refuge in a non-strategic area would be safer? Doesn't work that way in the "total war" concept.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Friday, November 25, 2005

Habeas Corpus?

Lost Amid the Rising Tide of Detainees in Iraq
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
The influx of prisoners has overwhelmed the Iraqi
authorities, and detention centers operate virtually
unchecked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/25/international/middleeast/25search.html?th&emc=th

...........................................................................

I daily receive a Google Alert on U.S. Prisoners. It is generally pretty grim reading, as the U.S. has replaced France (Devil's Island of notorious fame:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Island

as the most brutal developed nation in its treatment of prisoners -- and worse in its practice of imprisoning persons accused of terrorism with absolutely no proof that said prisoners are in fact terrorists.

The apologists for such criminal activity (in my professional view as a philosopher of law familiar both with the rule of law and the difficult history over centuries to protect individuals from tyrannical abuses) are either ignorant and totally unaware of our hard-won legal heritage -- the U.S. Constitution, the Rule of Law, the evolution of human rights standards -- or else are, themselves, war criminals as guilty as any we have experienced in our grim human history. The numbers do not make a difference here. It is the intent to violate essential standards long in the making to protect persons from abuses precisely by such an elementary rule as habeas corpus:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

I cannot believe that anyone informed enough to read this comment is not aware of the reports that alleged terrorists are too often rather persons picked up for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone who happened to be in Afghanistan before or during our attack on it or with any connections therewith can be accused of being a terrorist. The same is true of any with ties to Iraq. The Chalabi phenomenon -- lies promulgated for self-interest by an individual indicted by Jordan for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars and who provided in abundance the false information to justify the Bush and Co. attack on Iraq -- is an abomination to Americans, but has been most recently wined and dined by the central honchos in Bush's administration:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0315,fahim,43217,1.html


I cannot believe that we Americans are now secreting prisoners in brutal and too frequently hidden jails -- all too many who are most likely totally innocent.

This is a mad scene in which legal good and evil have been reversed. May our national torturers and their supporters achieve their just deserts -- in this world or the next.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Thursday, November 24, 2005

The Viet Nam Story

Indochina was a French colony. During WW2 it was occupied by the Japanese who were driven out by Ho Chi Minh, a communist. After the Japanese were defeated Charles De Gaulle blackmailed the U.S. into supporting a French return to colonial control by threatening not to join NATO. We did so, literally flying in French troops in U.S. uniforms and initially supporting a dredged up emperor. The French got creamed by the communists in a key battle at Dein Bien Phu in 1954:

http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/

and decided to depart before they suffered more damage. President Eisenhower opposed the U.S. getting involved in this mess -- we had no treaty obligations to the place. However, Kennedy, shortly before his death sent in about 17,000 military advisors to what was by then denominated South Viet Nam. On Kennedy's death Johnson expanded the U.S. involvement there to more than 1,000,000 American troops of which some 58,000 would eventually die and many more suffer drastic injuries and post traumatic stress -- many of our homeless. Unhappily most of those involved were high school or high school dropouts as any able to continued in college, graduate school or to find other dodges such as the National Guard were able to stay out of the conflict. The mud hit the fan, however, with the institution of a draft based on birthdays Jan. 1, 1970. The war had dragged on because of a misbegotten "domino theory" to the effect that if Viet Nam went communist, so would go the rest of South East Asia.

We were locked in a stalemate there. The Soviets were supporting the North Vietnamese. The Chinese and Vietnamese were traditional enemies, but the Chinese allowed war materials from the Soviets to be delivered to the North and made it clear that if we invaded the North, they would enter the war -- which they had done in Korea with disastrous results for us. So we bombed the North and anything else that we could not control. The North Vietnamese sent waves of troops to attack ours and we shot back much as in Iraq today, unable to distinguish military from civilians -- both wearing the same garb.

Finally, as the costs mounted, increasing numbers of supporters of the war changed their minds and we finally got ourselves out of there, leaving the Vietnamese to end the horrors of Cambodia where we had also messed around and allowed Pol Pot and his brutal crew to kill off millions -- the educated middle class.

Viet Nam was a foolish mess much as is Iraq today. Johnson had no experience with foreign affairs. We were sold into the war with false information, i.e. that North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked two of our destroyers leading to the Tonkin Gulf resolution:

http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/tonkin.htm

to enter a war full speed ahead -- again a parallel with the false information about Iraq. Needless to say Viet Nam cost us a bundle in monies as well as lives destroyed and along with Iraq may turn out to have been the beginning of the end of "peace and prosperity" (Eisenhower's campaign slogan) for the U.S.

Let's not play games with history there.

Have a good Thanksgiving. As family is gathered here, I have given minimal sources, but you can check out each event with a Google search.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Monday, November 21, 2005

Burn Them?

Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control
By SCOTT SHANE
The debate over American use of white phosphorus weapons in Iraq was aggravated, military officials admit, by an inconsistent response to an Italian documentary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/international/21phosphorus.html?th&emc=th


Some of the most shameful acts by the Allies in WW2 (apart from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were the fire bombings of cities directed at killing masses of civilians. We used this tactic on Dresden, a largely wooden German city noted for making dishes, and on Tokyo, a city of paper and wood, where our fire bombings killed far more than the totals of our two nuclear attacks.

Kurt Vonnegut memorialized the horrors of the Dresden bombing in his novel, Slaughterhouse Five:

http://www.vonnegutweb.com/sh5/sh5_nytimes.html


http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/vonnegut.htm


He had been there and survived as a prisoner of war fortuitously held deep underground. Many thousands died as the result of the fire storm with winds of several hundred miles an hour which swept anyone and anything into its inferno center created by our combination of high explosive bombs (creating much 'kindling wood') followed by phosphorous incendiaries.

One can only believe that those running our horrendous war on Iraq now were not alive then and watching Movietone News or perusing Life Magazine's graphic pictorial representations of such horrors. How can we as a nation operate with such a lack of imagination as we learn of the loss of our own soldiers -- a daily drum beat -- and receive only strangulated reports of killings of "insurgents" by the dozens -- exterminated by our troops firing wildly at any threatening figure or approaching automobile, phosphorous and rocket attacks from above on suspect targets?

Perhaps my young childhood memories of such things are an indication of an immature sensibility still at work in the face of such manifest human suffering. But I do not think so. Rather I believe we Americans have been horrendously desensitized by the steady diet of violence that we see day in and day out on our TV screens. This is not the way the rest of the world perceives things, however -- particularly those who suffered directly the horrors of WW2 and the subsequent wars from which the U.S. homeland was fortunately immunized.

Burn them -- our distant enemies?
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

The Destruction of Guatemalan Democracy by the C.I.A.

Mildewed Police Files May Hold Clues to Atrocities in Guatemala

By GINGER THOMPSON

The documents promise perhaps the last best hope for some degree of justice for the victims of decades of state-sponsored kidnapping and killing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/international/americas/21guatemala.html?th&emc=th


...............................................................

One of the saddest outcomes of U.S. intervention in the affairs of our Latin American neighbors was the expulsion by our C.I.A. (under Eisenhower) of the elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, in 1954 who had tried to liberate his country from the domination of one of our major U.S. corporate powers in that area, United Fruit Company:

http://www.unitedfruit.org/arbenz.html

The upshot from that time on has been tyrannical rule with more than 200,000 deaths ("state sponsored kidnapping and killing" . . . "of people suspected of being leftists." ) attributed to its cruel (U.S. supported) military regimes

Guatemala's pain has been America's shame! The U.S. record of destruction of democracies over the past 60 years (in the name of 'fighting communism') belies the comparable message now of George W. Bush that our war on Iraq was a necessary extension of a 'war on terrorism'.

The chaos in which we have left such nations -- Iran, Chile, and Guatemala to name some of the more egregious examples -- should be an object lesson as to what may be the all too likely cruel fate of Iraq as we withdraw our troops. Who will be its next Saddam Hussein?
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Friday, November 18, 2005

Grab What They Can While They Can

With scandals breaking out here, there, and elsewhere, it looks as though the Republicans have decided to grab what they can while they still can. At long last -- despite the constant distractions of sex and violence on our TV screens -- the American public is beginning to feel the pinch and get the message.

Americans are being blown away in Iraq while Halliburton rakes it in there. Unidentified individuals picked up at random are being tortured in American run and controlled prisons -- Gitmo to anonymous Middle Asian and Eastern European countries -- not exactly winning us friends and respect from Muslims and others around the world, sensing a 'born again' free enterprise crusade being launched in their direction. UN agencies increasingly have had it with Bush and Co. stalling -- on environmental matters, the rule of law, a nearly universally endorsed International Criminal Court, weapons restrictions -- the list is long and growing of U.S. sabotage of most of the good things that people around the globe are hoping to achieve/salvage.

So where are the Republicans going now? One guesses that it is becoming clear to them that their days in power are numbered. 2006 will bring elections that should shake up incumbents in both houses. Bush will be a lame duck with dangerous impeachable offenses circling ever closer to the White House. Get some right wingers on the Court to protect corporate interests for the foreseeable future? That was why the Harriet Miers was out of there -- not incompetence, but a frail body that might not have lasted 30 years to do damage -- and possibly a real Christian conscience at work -- all that pro bono work and a working knowledge of corporate scams?

With the 217-215 vote to slash such things as Medicaid and student loans the Republicans have thrown away the votes of those unwary or naive who either have not voted or who have slipped into Republican clutches by voting hot button issues -- gays, abortion, women's and minority rights -- whatever might be used to override reasonable self-interest. Giving big breaks to the super rich, which looks to be the next item on the Republican agenda, will provide generous funding for the right wing think tanks -- but the word is out with the public that it is losing more than it is gaining with phony 'reforms' directed _against_ its general interests. Any senior citizen in his/her right mind is now aware that the Medicare prescription formulae are set up to enrich the drug companies -- not to extend life for one's later years. Imagine -- full pay between $1,600 and $5,000 a year and all those sharks circling round to take a cut from even this inadequate funding package?

One could go on at greater length, but hopefully enough has been said here to make the point. The Republicans have a year to grab while they can. It is bound to be an ugly year and some of them may panic and cut out prematurely. But hopefully what is unfolding will be an object lesson for Americans for decades to come. It is time to find out who is playing what games with our lives and to vote accordingly!
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

UN rejects Guantanamo visit offer

[I am ashamed as an American that my nation has engaged in torture -- the horror that confronted us in the Nazi and that continued with Stalin and the Cold War. My gut reaction is that we are being run by a bunch of gangsters in and around the White House. This is the spawn of our right wing think tanks set running by William Buckley straight out of the fascist model of his second home back when in Franco's Spain. It is time that we got rid of these neo-fascists who are, I hope, now disallusioning the public as they attempt their last grab from our national resources. Stay tuned for the tax relief plotted for the super wealthy following upon last night's Republican House vote, 217-215, slashing basic budget items -- food, medicine, affordable housing, student loans -- for those Americans who need them. The eyes of the world (if not CNN and FOX news) are upon us. Ed Kent]

...................................................................

UN rejects Guantanamo visit offer
Some 500 terror suspects are being held at Guantanamo
The UN has formally rejected a US invitation to visit the Guantanamo prison camp, saying it cannot accept the restrictions imposed by Washington.

UN human rights experts said the US had refused to grant them the right to speak to detainees in private.

This was needed to make a "credible, objective and fair assessment of the situation of the detainees", they said.

Some 500 terror suspects are being held at the US military camp. Only the Red Cross has been given access to them.

The International Committee of the Red Cross reports its findings only to the detaining authorities.

Pentagon refusal

Human rights campaigners have expressed growing concern about the treatment of the inmates at Guantanamo, a number of whom are on hunger strike.

We deeply regret that the US government did not accept the standard terms of reference
UN monitors' statement.

Calls for it to be opened to human rights monitors increased this year, as more allegations surfaced of abuse at the prison camp.

UN officials have been trying to visit the camp since it opened in January 2002.

Last month, the Pentagon said the UN monitors would be allowed to visit the camp on 6 December.

The UN agreed to limit the visit to one day, rather than three, and to send three monitors and not five.

But it remained adamant that the inspectors would not visit if they were not allowed to talk to detainees privately.

The UN monitors have said that to visit the camp under such restrictions "would undermine the principles" under which they work.

"It is particularly disappointing that the United States government, which has consistently declared its commitment to the principles and of independence and objectivity of the fact-finding mechanism, was not in a position to accept these terms," a UN statement said.
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Monday, November 14, 2005

The Hidden Costs of Electing Republicans to Office

[Unhappily the general public is unaware of the hidden costs of electing Republicans to office these days -- the perks provided for wealthy interests by such as the NYC Landmarks Commission -- now converted more or less to a big real estate support operation by Giuliani and Bloomberg. Giuliani also provided special tax breaks along the same lines to Wall St. interests.

The long and short of supporting Republicans is relief and benefits for the very well off and increased expenses -- both lost services as well as increased taxes -- for the rest of us not in the upper 1% bracket.

And so it goes here. Let us not forget as we watch the Manhattanville eminent domain scenario unfolding that the NY Times benefited from same in acquiring its new building. People must be made aware that the way our property system works, the payoffs to one interest group such as the real estate developers mentioned in this article are in fact paid for by the deprivations and burdens placed on others. The U.S. -- and particularly NYC -- is seeing an ever widening gap between poverty and wealth and we are sinking embarrassingly in comparison with comparable nations in its provision of resources to those in need of better educations, health care, affordable housing, etc.

Our own life of late has been thoroughly noise burdened by heavy reconstruction of Riverside Park north and south of 116th St. I hate to guess the tab. Debris-ridden outer boro parks are virtually unusable in comparison. And with its attempted grab by eminent domain of Manhattanville (the South West Corner of West Harlem) Columbia is going for a massive outlay of NY State Dormitory Authority Bonds -- 1/2 Billion $$$ or more (?) to be paid off by the next generation of tax payers? Ed Kent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/arts/design/14pres.html?th&emc=th
Turning Up the Heat on a Landmarks Agency

By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
Published: November 14, 2005

Someone has stolen one of my buildings! That was the panicked reaction of Beverly Moss Spatt, then the chairwoman of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, after the cast-iron facades of a building by James Bogardus were spirited away from a downtown lot in 1974. The 1849 facades, supposedly protected by official landmark status, had been disassembled and stored for eventual relocation at another site. But thieves broke into the lot and sold most of them off as scrap metal.

Three decades later, Ms. Spatt, now retired, is one of the people fighting to save 2 Columbus Circle, a 1965 building by Edward Durell Stone, in one of the biggest preservation uproars in a generation. But this time it is the commission itself that seems to have been hijacked.

Once considered the most powerful agency of its kind, the commission has lost the confidence of many mainstream preservationists by repeatedly refusing to hold a public hearing on the building's fate. At the urging of those preservation advocates, a city councilman, Bill Perkins, has introduced a bill that could force the commission to hold public hearings on potential landmarks. The implication is that the commission cannot always be trusted to protect the public interest.

The bill, which is to come before a City Council subcommittee that meets at 11 this morning, would require a public hearing on any building that has been determined eligible for listing on the state register of historic places. It would also allow the City Council to demand such a public hearing in a majority vote.

The bill probably comes too late to save 2 Columbus Circle, where scaffolding began to rise this month. (The building has been sold to the Museum of Arts and Design, which plans to remake the interior and clad its white marble Venetian-style façade in terra-cotta tiles.) The aim is rather to ensure that similar debacles can be averted in the future.

But the bill does not specifically address the sad reality that the commission no longer seems willing to fulfill its role as a defender of the city's architectural legacy. This is not solely the fault of its chairman, Robert B. Tierney, on whom much of the controversy has focused. It has to do with a subtle but crucial shift in how the commission does business. Founded in 1965 in response to the tragic razing of Penn Station two years earlier, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has traditionally been made up of independent voices with deep roots in the preservation community.

The commission's power to protect a building in virtual perpetuity - and its willingness to use that power - made it the most powerful such agency in the United States. Its chairmen were often willing to stand up to the mayor when they felt a principle was at stake.

The gradual shift away from those convictions had its seeds in the fiscal crisis of the mid-1970's, which spurred the rise of public-private partnerships with developers. Developers gained increasing power over how the city was shaped. Playing on the public's fear, many politicians argued that the only alternative was a descent into blight and crime.

That attitude reached its apogee during the Giuliani administration, which often appointed commission members more for their political ties than for their records as advocates for architecture. Jennifer Raab, the commission's chairwoman from 1994 to 2001, was a real estate lawyer who had worked as a campaign aide on Rudolph W. Giuliani's staff. Mr. Tierney, a appointment by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, is a former lobbyist with deeper political ties than preservation experience.

The shift toward political expediency has been aggravated by soaring real estate prices in almost every corner of the city. Significant but little-noticed works of architecture that are now standing on valuable land, making them that much more vulnerable to demolition. Among the buildings preservationists are worried most about these days are the 1964 New York State Pavilion, designed by Philip Johnson, in Queens, and the Domino Sugar plant in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, from the 1890's. Neither building has yet to receive a hearing by the Landmarks Commission.

If passed, the Perkins bill would shift the balance of power somewhat. Requiring the commission to hold a public hearing on any building that is being considered for the state historical register would at least prevent travesties like the commission's stonewalling on 2 Columbus Circle. And it would add a dose of transparency to the commission's decision-making process.

But in the long run, what is needed is a ruthless analysis of the landmark designation process. The commission's research staff has been cut in half over the last decade because of budget reductions. This makes it difficult for the commission to identify buildings that deserve consideration. And if the bill succeeds, the commission's workload is certain to expand.

Of course, more City Council input would not necessarily help the preservationist cause. The council has its own political agenda. It recently overturned the commission's decision to grant landmark status to the 1969 Jamaica Savings Bank in Queens, and preservationists fear that it intends to do the same to the Austin, Nichols & Co. Warehouse, a 1915 building in Williamsburg, designed by Cass Gilbert, in a council vote scheduled for Nov. 22. The vast structure, admired for its Egyptian Revival motifs, stands on the site of a proposed residential waterfront development; the local city councilman, David Yassky, has already declared that the building doesn't merit landmark protection.

The only hope to be derived from this struggle is that the fate of 2 Columbus Circle will harden the resolve of a younger generation of preservation advocates who are less willing to accept the status quo. The drive to save 2 Columbus Circle, after all, was led by Landmark West, founded in 1985 and led by Kate Wood, rather than more established institutions like the Municipal Art Society, which opposes the Perkins bill.

This new generation of advocates seems eager to discuss what parts of our city's heritage deserve protection, and they have clearly not hesitated to lead the charge against an inexorable political process, filing one legal appeal after another to save Edward Durell Stone's building. Vanquished on that front as the scaffolding went up this month at Columbus Circle, Landmark West set up a streaming Webcast of the building titled "Shame Cam" (landmarkwest.org/webcam/javlw.html).

Not everyone, it seems, is satisfied with business as usual.
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Sunday, November 13, 2005

So You Want a New American Empire?

"Some delegates to the meeting saw Egypt's objections as a reflection of the Arab world's growing irritation with what some say is the lecturing tone of American calls for democracy. United States involvement in Iraq plays a part in that: the Arab world is not persuaded by the administration's portrayal of Iraq, which Secretary Rice visited on Friday, as a beacon for democracy.

"Rather, they say, Iraq represents the perils of imposing democracy from outside. Its violence is widely seen as offering a cautionary tale rather than an inspiration, American officials acknowledge."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/international/middleeast/13rice.html?th&emc=th

*************************************************************************

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana.

The British Empire dominated 1/4 of the world's population (i.e. administered countries rather than permitting democratic rule in them until their empire went broke after WW2). Many hoped at that time for the emergence of democracy in the former colonies, British and others -- such a hope was blasted in many if not all of the former British possessions, particularly in Africa and the Middle East where corrupt and autocratic regimes rapidly replaced early democratic efforts -- not infrequently following supporting interventions _against_ democracy by the U.S. (CIA) and others interested in retaining corporate dominance over the resources of the former colonies -- Iran to Guatemala.

Needless to say the neocon efforts towards reestablishing today a neo American empire in the Middle East set the stage for comparable disasters -- bankruptcy for the home country (us) and chaos for those afflicted by our interventions and impositions of a notion of democracy apparently based on Texas styled free enterprise:

"The administration did, however, get backing for a $50 million foundation to support political activities in the Muslim world, with money to be raised from American, European and Arab sources, and a $100 million fund half financed by the United States to provide venture capital to businesses." (also from the same NY Times article today)

Caveat emptor! The angered gods may not comply.
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Friday, November 11, 2005

Connecting the Dots

What follows is part of a response to one who questioned my observation that we have more homelessness now in Morningside Heights by far -- people living in Riverside Park and under it in the train tunnel -- than in our days as Columbia students in the late fifties and early sixties. I share it along with the report by Nell Bernstein of the dire situation of children of our prisoners in the U.S. -- we hold in jail 1/4 of the world's prison population with only 1/20 of the world's population. Others with less national wealth than ours do better. Needless to say poverty drives people to crime. I recall the little gang of kids with whom I worked in Manhattanville. I had been a camp counselor in this country and worked with kids in the East End of London as an exchange student. Did all the usual things with them from basketball to arts and crafts. When, however, I worked later with kids in Manhattanville as an intern I discovered that what was wanted was FOOD -- 12 and 13 years are hungry ones for boys and we shifted to baking cakes from mixes that I would bring to the community center. Needless to say, at that age, one grabbed food when hungry -- a bunch of bananas, say, for a fruit stand and ran as fast as one could. It did not take much moving along to reach the stage of selling one's body or doing 15-25 for armed robbery as did two who were twins. All but three had died violently by their forties. The rational things there were doing to cope with homelessness and hunger, we punish with jail. And then there were their children -- the twin with the armed robbery rap had a wife and small child when sentenced. And so it goes. Ed Kent

.....................................................................

An occasional hobo we might have had, but until they were converted to co-ops about a decade ago, we had a good supply of single room occupancy locations -- on 112th St. for instance. And prior to that we were still building public housing projects, e.g. Grant Houses where we lived as grad students for 3 years. That ended with Reagan. The upshot now is that people are either jammed in together -- saw at least five or six family units living in a 7-8 room apartment down the hill on a tour with Tom DeMott a few years back. And no one lived in Riverside Park or in the rail tunnels until the ending off of the alternative housing. I worked with kids in the old Manhattanville Community Center and could see the vast difference in their lives between the run down tenements now mainly torn down and the public housing life where kids were safe, could do homework, etc. My years were 1956-1963, 1966+ with a couple of years out. We stopped constructing affordable housing, we shut down the horrendous mental hospitals with the promise of community locations never carried out, and we deport thousands to upstate prisons where they provide jobs for the newly unemployed blue collar types as guards, and the victims of all of the above are mainly children -- 80% of those jailed are parents, often of very young children. Only Bedford Hills allows mothers to keep them for a year and a bit. Most are shipped out for adoption if no relative is available and our draconian laws keep people in jail for decades for selling stuff that kills only occasionally, not by the hundreds of thousands each year as does tobacco. Pardon, but I caught a most depressing interview re-run with Leonard Lopate last night that detailed the children thing -- the rest I saw with my own eyes and I have a good memory. The point is that we are living in a most cruel society in which homelessness is both an effect and a cause of terrible things. What might you do to keep your children in a home? Ed Kent

..................................................................

All Alone in the World
2.4 million American children have a parent in jail--that’s one out of every thirty-three kids. Journalist Nell Bernstein looks at the toll incarceration takes on the children who are left behind in All Alone in
the World.

..........................................................................

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/goldstein/all_alone_110905.htm

By Nancy Goldstein | RAW STORY COLUMNIST

An eleven-year-old struggles to reconnect with a mother who has recently been released from prison. The woman’s drug conviction means she can’t live in public housing, receive welfare, or obtain food stamps. After several months of fruitless job searching and sleeping in a shelter, she accepts an offer from the neighborhood cocaine dealer. This time, when the mother goes back to prison, the daughter refuses to accept her calls.

[All Alone in the World]

Advertisement

Criminologist Stephen Richards says, “A successful corrections system doesn’t grow. If they were correcting anybody, they’d shrink.”

By Richards’ standards, the US penal system is a massive failure. Our prisons hold a record 2.1 million men and women. That’s twice as many inmates as the prison population of the entire continent of Africa, which is three times the size of the US — and a five-fold increase from the number of inmates in US prisons 30 years ago. The US incarceration rate of 724 per 100,000 is 25% higher than that of any other nation. And the total number of people incarcerated grew 1.9% last year, bringing to 2.4 million the number of children who now have a mother or father behind bars.

The surge in the US prison population has nothing to do with an increase in violent crime: homicide, rape, robbery, and assault have all declined steadily since 1993. Its source is the so-called “war on drugs,” which cost taxpayers a cool 12 billion in 2004 alone, and has done nothing to reduce illegal drug use or availability.

Its most destructive legacy has been the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that were created a few decades ago, mostly by lawmakers eager to appear tough on crime in the run up to elections at the height of the Reaganalia (“Just Say No”), and in the midst of public hysteria over the emergence of a potent new drug called crack cocaine. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws dictate fixed sentences for individuals convicted of a crime regardless of culpability or other mitigating factors.

These laws have swelled the number of non-violent, first-time offenders behind bars, and driven the number of drug offenders in prisons and jails overall from 40,000 in 1980 to more than 450,000 today. By 2003, those sentenced for drug offenses made up 55% of all federal inmates. In 2004, law officers made more arrests for drug violations than for any other offense — about 1.7 million arrests, or 12.5% of all arrests.

The only way to reduce one’s sentence under mandatory minimum sentencing laws is to provide information to the prosecution that will lead to the conviction of another offender. This has meant that the kingpins the laws were allegedly intended for usually walk free while their low level workers, such as the women who serve as their “drug mules,” routinely serve long sentences. That’s why the number of women incarcerated in state facilities for drug-related offenses rose by 888% between 1986 and 1999, far outpacing the number of men imprisoned for similar crimes.

Journalist Nell Bernstein’s excellent new book, All Alone in the World: Children of the Incarcerated, documents the endless — and fruitless — cycle of crime and punishment that the mandatory drug sentencing laws of the past three decades have set into motion, and their devastating effect on the very children, families, and communities that they were allegedly created to protect.

All Alone in the World reads as a compelling mixture of damage assessment and blueprint for the future. Using first-hand stories derived from dozens of interviews with children of incarcerated parents, Bernstein critiques policies around arrest, sentencing, visiting, foster care, reentry, and legacy.

The oftentimes harrowing accounts of her interview subjects not only foreground the trauma children are exposed to through the current system, but offer glimpses of where it has gone wrong — and could go right. The police who came for nine-year-old Ricky’s mom were in such a hurry that they left him alone in the apartment with his infant brother. For two weeks, Ricky cooked for himself and his brother, and changed his diapers, until neighbors noticed and called Child Protective Services. Antonia was five when she saw her mother arrested on the street for prostitution — handcuffed and put into the back of a police car. At home, she and her ten-year-old brother were on their own for a week until their mother returned.

Witnessing a parent being seized and handcuffed at gunpoint and then being left alone in the house to fend for oneself — and this routinely happens to children during an arrest — isn’t just a bad situation for the child, or one that could easily be redressed by something as simple as an officer taking the child into the next room and asking the parent if there’s someone who can take care of him. It also creates early, deep mistrust towards the law and its enforcers — and, as one officer reminds Bernstein, encouraging children to see police as the enemy does not enhance public or police safety.

Through careful documentation and statistical evidence illustrated by first-hand accounts, Bernstein argues that the well-being of both prisoners and their children is better insured through drug treatment, regular family visits, and parenting classes than it is through simply locking prisoners up, forcing them to communicate with their children by phone or through glass, or farming a child out to a foster home “for their own good” — i.e., to remove them from the “criminal element” in their lives. The latter may satisfy the current American bloodlust for retribution, but the policies that Bernstein recommends produce far lower rates of recidivism among inmates and decrease the chance that their children will later wind up in trouble with the law themselves.

There are those who will howl that convicted felons don’t deserve any “privileges” upon release — that they should “pay” for their crime forever. But shutting down every means by which a parent can hope to go straight is a recipe for recidivism that punishes both parents and their kids. “Children,” Bernstein writes, celebrate their parent’s release “with cyclical regularity, then lose hope in increments as she fights a losing battle against joblessness, untreated addiction, and the intractable stigma of a criminal record.” When a parent can’t get a job or food stamps, or live in public housing or get into a decent drug treatment program because of her past conviction, the resulting strain undermines the parent-child relationship, humiliates and enrages everyone involved, and increases the chances of the parent turning to crime again and the child following her example.

Because this is a book of problems and solutions, Bernstein offers examples from working model programs at every point in her critique. Take New York, where repeat offenders usually face long prison sentences under the notoriously harsh Rockefeller mandatory sentencing laws. The Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison (DTAP) program specifically targets hard cases and offers participants a deferred sentence if they agree to spend fifteen to twenty-four months in a residential treatment program instead. Columbia University’s five-year evaluation of the program showed that participants were 87% less likely to return to prison than those who simply served their sentence without treatment. And the cost savings of DTAP over the standard charges associated with imprisonment and recidivism have added up to a savings of 26 million dollars since the program began in 1990.

In Oregon, the Department of Corrections is collaborating with other state and non-profit agencies on a Children of Incarcerated Parents project. The initiative fosters family bonds as a means of improving the long-term prospects of the children and their parents alike for working together as a family and avoiding further encounters with the criminal justice system.

In California, a small, select group of women who have been convicted of nonviolent and nonserious offenses (shoplifting, for example) are offered the opportunity to serve one-year sentences together with up to two children — a situation that allows the women to care for their children rather than sending them into the foster system.

All of these innovative programs cost less money than incarcerating thousands of people each year. All of them are more effective at preventing recidivism. And all of them are still — well, model programs in a country that gives a lot of lip service to “family values,” but appears to derive much more satisfaction from locking up its citizens than it does from creating a genuinely rehabilitative justice and penal system.

Innovative approaches like these could have spared Dorothy Gaines and her family quite a bit of trauma. Dorothy is the middle-aged widow and mother of three I wrote about this past spring who wound up doing hard time for conspiracy to deliver crack cocaine, even though police never found any evidence of drugs in her home.

Dorothy was “turned in” by shady friends of her boyfriend who were looking for a way to reduce their mandatory minimum sentences. They told the federal prosecutor that she had been a drug mule, and it worked. The men who actually ran the drug ring reduced their time to five years while Dorothy was convicted of a conspiracy charge and sentenced to nearly 20. She served six before President Clinton commuted her sentence in 2000.

Before her arrest, Dorothy had been a nurse’s technician with a good salary who regularly took her children to the zoo, bought them treats, and worked in her garden. That was before police surrounded her car when she stopped at a light on her way back from a family reunion with her three kids. Before they pulled their guns out in front of her eight-year-old son, Phillip, and her daughters, ten-year-old Chara and eighteen-year-old Natasha, or took them back to Dorothy’s apartment to rip out her floorboards. Before they hustled her off to jail, where an incompetent, court-appointed attorney bungled her case.

Now Dorothy is out and trying to piece her life together again. But her drug conviction has closed off virtually every avenue to becoming economically self-sufficient and taking her place at the head of her family once more.

Dorothy sounded frustrated when I spoke with her today on the phone. “When you come out, where are you supposed to go?” she steamed. “There’s nothing for a person when they come out of the system: no housing, no jobs. You go to fill out a job application and the first thing on it says ‘Are you a convicted felon?’ They don’t want to hire you. If you lie and they find out about it, it’s not just that you’re not hired: under your parole, those are grounds for terminating your probation and sending you back to prison.”

Dorothy was looking forward to December 22nd, when she would be finished serving her five years of probation and could apply for a pardon. Maybe then she would be allowed to work as a nurse’s technician once more. “If I could have a real home by Christmas,” she sighed, “That would be the best present in the world.”

All Alone in the World appears at a crucial point in the public conversation about crime, punishment, and privilege. While white-collar criminals whine about the criminalization of politics, the criminalization of families by a supposedly family-friendly government is a far more real and common thing — as innocent children are forced to share in the punishment of parents who never stop paying their dues.

--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

War "Crimes of Aggression" -- Nuremberg to Iraq?

I strongly recommend that any who can try to catch the re-run of an ABA International Law Section panel presentation that appeared on C-Span 3, today, 11/11/05, featuring both the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Trials, Benjamin Ferencz:

http://www.benferencz.org/

http://www.humanmedia.org/program_ferencz.php3


and his fellow prosecutor and wider friend and colleague, Henry King:

http://www.lauferfilm.com/king/

currently U.S. Director of the Canada-U.S. Law Institute. The two men have had distinguished careers in the field of international law, following studies respectively at CCNY and Harvard Law and Yale undergrad and legal studies.

Both were quite young and barely graduated from law school when they were asked to take on the awesome task of the Nuremberg war criminal trials. Each did on the scene research into the abysmal acts of Nazi leaders in the death camps and also the murderous slaughters of civilians (a million or more) carried out under "superior orders" by German troops on the road to Stalingrad -- with the presumption that even small children, if spared, might become enemies of Germany with the knowledge of the murders of their parents.

Both movingly report the grim details of their first hand experiences and each is disturbed that the Bush administration may also have committed the major crime of aggressive war-making established at Nuremberg -- a war "Crime of Aggression" -- unjustified by actual or "presumptive" threats of a future attack by another nation(s). As each points out, this excuse can be used to justify _any_ aggressive war.

Following upon the moving presentation of these two impressive figures in the history of the evolution of international law in the last century -- Ferencz now 85 and going strong and King "older," Michael Ssharf, Director of the Case Western Reserve Institute of International Law:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/paradigm-scharf.html


offered a follow up description of recent legal moves -- Bosnia, Rwanda, and Iraq -- attempting to deal through the rule of law with the acts of genocide committed in each. He noted the delay for almost two generations in the acceptance by the German public of the reality of the Holocaust and the justice of the Nuremberg trials, the resistance of the Serbs to the wrong doing by their leaders in Bosnia, leading to a prediction that the trial of Saddam Hussein may, too, be seen by many in Iraq as an unjust imposition upon the former leader of that disrupted nation, all too likely not resolving the emerging internal conflicts there.

All obviously deplore the Bush administration attempts to savage the newly established International Criminal Court now supported by more than 100 nations including those of Europe and our near neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

Anyone concerned, in the words of Benjamin Ferencz, to make 'law' rather than 'war' the means to maintain peace and to resolve human conflicts will want to see any available replays of this deeply moving presentation by two men who were among the first on the scene to witness the horrors of the Nazi depredations.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Thursday, November 10, 2005

War Is Hell

[The costs of war are deadly for soldiers from a democracy particularly. We teach people in the military precisely the opposite of what we expect of civilians -- killing people is right.

During the Korean war there was considerable distress caused when it was discovered that many of our soldiers were not shooting at the enemy -- they did not want to kill. So we had to retrain people to do so. The upshot of that by the time of the Viet Nam war was deadly stress on soldiers -- recourse to drugs that were freely available there, hitting out at superior officers. When I was serving on an ACLU advisory committee, the issue arose of amnesty for some 300,000 ex-Viet Nam vets who had been given dishonorable discharges for such violations and, thus, cut off from any veteran benefits or supports. Amnesty was not granted. Many came home as addicts, ended up in prison, and are occasionally to be met on our streets as the homeless ones.

War is hell on those who fight in them. I am infinitely relieved that my nurse daughter decided to resign from the military before she would have been caught up in Iraq -- she saw herself as contributing her medical skills and training to peace-keeping missions -- not wars. And she was most fortunate to have decided just in time to quit so that she could concentrate on her children and training here as a private citizen. Ed Kent]

OP-ED COLUMNIST
An Army Ready to Snap
By BOB HERBERT
The problems of the military go far beyond the casualty
figures coming out of the war zone.

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/opinion/10herbert.html?th&emc=th
(Available only to TimesSelect subscribers)
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp


Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Where Have All Our Investigative Reporters Gone?

Alexis de Tocqueville in his classic Democracy in America long ago made the point that Americans tend towards group think -- and ignore dissenting opinions. As one watches the press coverage of recent U.S. abuses of the most basic standards of international law -- a criminal war and continuing prosecution of same involving massive civilian harms in Iraq, torture as a defended practice by our de facto president, Cheney, one wonders why U.S. citizens in general are not rising up in open revolt against such fundamental abuses of our oft stated democratic values?

The obvious answer is that our media are using the tactics of 'divert and deny' to draw attention away from these horrors. Only in the worst regimes of the last century was the endlessly repeated big lie the standard operating tactic used to divert attention from homeland horrors and other abuses beyond national borders.

I well recall the pressures that I faced as an initially naive student journalist, the decisions we made to blow the cover on abuses in our undergraduate scene, and the authorities' threats and charges of disloyalty ensuing on reports that Yale maintained an anti-Jewish admissions quota (particularly directed against "those from Brooklyn and the Bronx,") the "Pig Night" group rape operations carried out by the frats -- especially DKE -- of which the present Bush later became the glad-handing president, the violations of state drinking laws and cover-ups by university authorities of resultant gross sexual rapes of young teen girls enticed into student dorms, our extra-campus reports on the latest McCarthyite abuses that drew to us the ire of William Buckley.

I also saw media censorship carried out by the power that was Time, Inc. ("fair, but not objective journalism") -- Henry Luce -- when I wrote for it one summer as an undergrad. But our TV media reports covering events today (have been watching more than usual as I am trapped at home with a bad cold) are unbelievably irrelevant to what are the critical issues facing the U.S. today. Bush and Co. have blown it. Even the long abused (by us) Latin Americans no longer fear sticking it to him, face to face. Where are those in-depth reports of U.S. uses of proscribed weapons against civilians in Iraq -- the phosphorous bombs that incinerated civilians in Fallujah last November (playing not here but on Italian TV), the CIA torture victims now rendered out to such bastions of the still Soviet-esque residual empire in Romania and Poland?

Why must one get one's daily real news either from the internet or through such small windows as Amy Goodman's Democracy Now?

Yes, the New York Times gets out some of the news (as does the Washington Post) -- _some_ of the news. Its 'balanced' op ed people are a study in truth and propaganda -- side by side. One can trust Krugman and Bob Herbert. Maureen Dowd sticks it to them. Friedman fiddles while the U.S. burns people. The others 'on the right' offer the latest spins out of their right-winger well funded think tanks -- Heritage, Hoover, Manhattan, Free Enterprise et al.

I am old enough to remember as a frightened child the rants of Adolph Hitler and his minions. I reported to my parents, following the interruption in my Jack Armstrong, All American Boy, radio program, the announcement of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I lived as a kid in a world in which we all bonded together to resist a _real_ set of enemies. I am, thus, particularly horrified by the junk that passes now for news -- even in the NY Times -- the latest mother who has carelessly caused her infant's death, the sex crime murder of the week out there somewhere, the doings of this or that celeb.

When I press my students on their views on torture, very few endorse it. But they are overwhelmed both by the excess of irrelevant noise coming their way from our media and silenced by the inaction of those of us who should be shouting loud and clear for the impeachment of our war criminals. Clinton diddled with a young aide; Bush and Co. have murdered many thousands now with prohibited weapons in their greed dominated criminal wars.

Where the hell are you guys?
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

"Nothing But Contempt"

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." [G.H.W. Bush, former CIA Director, 26 April, 1999]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/bush.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html


............................................................................

I am surprised that others have not located this pertinent condemnation of those who exposed Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp

Preventive Detention?

"The British settlement in India began through the east india company's domination over all aspects of life after it assumed the revenue collection authority (diwani) of Bengal. The early statutes such as the Regulating Act of 1773 and the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793, though not specifically meant to be statutes for preventive detention, did directly encroach upon the fundamental rights of the local people. The first statutes which contained specific provisions for preventive detention were the East India Company Act 1784 and the East India Company Act 1793. The imposition of martial law through the Bengal State Offences Regulation 1804 remained enforceable for 118 years till it was repealed by another law in 1922. The Foreign Immigrants Regulation 1812 contained provision for detention, though meant for the foreigners, included those who were settled in Bengal for generations. The East India Company promulgated the Bengal Prisoners Regulation, 1818 containing specific provisions for preventive detention. It was truly a preventive detention statute which remained in force till 1947."

[Banglapedia: http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/ ]

.........................................................................

I first heard of the practice of preventive detention in a Columbia University Faculty Human Rights Seminar some decades back when this practice was defended there by an Israeli scholar as a limited, but necessary practice involving a handful of suspected terrorists in Israel who could be held without charges or legal recourse for six months at a time (with renewals) on the grounds that such individuals were known to be terrorists, but that evidence proving same could not be disclosed without putting at risk vital sources of information.

Those of us in attendance at that particular seminar meeting -- Columbia and faculty from other area institutions -- were distressed to hear of this Israeli practice, as it had been a primary source of violations of human rights practiced in Apartheid South Africa. I had no idea at the time that 'preventive detention' was a practice of long standing, as indicated by the above excerpt from the Banglapedia which pops up as the first of some 815,000 Google offerings under this heading.

One grasps why some of the key U.S. Constitutional provisions support in our Bill of Rights due process protections and restrictions on incarceration methods that must presumably have been standard British practices against which the Founding Fathers were inveighing (if not against our institution of slavery and genocide per se).

How short (or dumbed down) our American memories are that we in turn have reverted to preventive detention of presumed (but unproved) 'terrorists' as a current American practice which we seem bent on spreading around the world with "renderings" here, there, and elsewhere -- not to be disclosed for security reasons per the recent Washington Post report of CIA imprisonments in secret locations -- nations that might be endangered by such disclosures!

Could it be that preventive detention goes hand in hand with imperial impositions upon resistant populations? Certainly such was the case in India while the East India Company was extracting goods and services therefrom, in South Africa under Apartheid, and, yes, in Israel, in the face of occupied Palestinians -- and now in Iraq, which the U.S. chose to invade with hardly innocent motivations, given our hot pursuit of oil and the revenues to be garnered therefrom by such as Cheney's Halliburton enterprises?

Dirty hands, perhaps, is the metaphor that best captures this practice. One must cover up stained things in such circumstances -- not necessarily to protect vital security matters so much as to hide damning disclosures of abuses that might call for war crime prosecutions -- or future Truth and Reconciliation Commissions?

What secrets lie hidden in these prisons? Only public trials can disclose them -- who is guilty and who is innocent.

When preventive detention is put forth as an excuse for a war on terrorists, the burden of proof lies equally upon those jailed -- and their jailers. One must remain skeptical when 'justifications' are offered for fundamental violations of the most basic of human rights -- which so many good people have given their lives to secure.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights


http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/


http://www.bloggernews.net/blognews.asp