Blogs

Only a matter of time...

Tue Mar. 22, 2005 12:05 PM PST

According to one detainee lawyer, there are still some 500 hours of unreleased video footage of prisoners in Guantanmo Bay, some of it containing evidence of abuse by the U.S. military. But what's truly sick and perplexing, as the Daily Telegraph reports, is how lawyers first learned about the existence of this footage:

[T]he U.S. military videotaped the actions of the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) who were responsible for prisoner control at Guantanamo Bay... Evidence of the violence used by the IRF came to light when a member of the U.S. military... identified as Specialist Baker, applied for medical discharge after being involved in a training session.

Here is where things gets weird. This "training session" involved Baker, a U.S. soldier, being dressed in orange jumpsuit prisoner garb and handed over to the IRF squad, which was told that he was in fact a detainee who had abused a guard. The IRF apparently did such a good job working Baker over that he needed to apply for medical discharge from the military due to the brain damage he received from the beating.

The ACLU is pushing for the video footage to be released, though U.S. officials are refusing due to "privacy concerns." Meanwhile, numerous former detainees from Afghanistan and Guantanamo have come forward with allegations of abuse—oftentimes claiming that videotapes and photographs were used as a part of the humiliation process. It seems like it's just a matter of time before even more visual material emerges. The internet and inexpensive digital technology have enabled soldiers to bring home the war in an unprecedented way. We have already seen an explosion of soldiers' personal footage online, and it's likely that new incriminating footage will come from members of the U.S. military who have documented unconscionable acts—especially if they entail soldiers abusing soldiers.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Abstinence makes the id grow fonder

—By

| Tue Mar. 22, 2005 11:15 AM PST

This via Ideopolis, the useful blog of the Moving Ideas Network:

A new study of 12,000 teens released from Yale and Columbia Universities found that teens who pledged to remain virgins until marriage were more likely to take chances and participate in sexual acts that increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. This follows a series of similar studies which have come to the same conclusion. When will this administration learn that abstinence-only education programs won't stop teen pregnancies and STDs?

Answer: Not soon! As as been exhaustively—and fruitlessly—noted, the Bush administration doesn't do the Enlightenment, and has never passed up an opportunity to spurn expertise and put politics above mere science.

Blood-bath at the Beeb

—By

| Tue Mar. 22, 2005 9:50 AM PST

These are dark days for the BBC. Yesterday more than 2,000 staffers in production and broadcasting (meaning news, sport, and drama) heard they're getting the boot. This comes on top of 1,700 business-side layoffs announced a couple of weeks ago. By the time Mark Thompson, the newish director general (the last one, you'll remember, quit over that dodgy WMD story) gets done swinging the meat axe, the BBC will be about 6,000 people lighter.

No doubt there's a lot of fat to trim at the Beeb, which, while indispensable on so many counts, is a big, unwieldy bureaucracy -- and one, moreover, that subsists on taxpayer money. If Thompson is as good as his word and the money saved will go into new and better programming, all to the good. But we'll see.

Then again, lately the BBC is finding it can't even spend the money it wants to spend. Ricky Gervais, the man behind "The Office" (the best, and most painful, thing to come out of the BBC in years) just turned down a $10 million deal with the corporation, saying, sublimely, that such arrangements encourage "laziness and extravagance" and that, anyway, he didn't want to be the BBC's "bitch."

Immigration by the numbers

—By

| Mon Mar. 21, 2005 3:27 PM PST

Few surprises in this new Pew study on illegal immigration to the US. The number of undocumented immigrants has reached 10.3 million and keeps on growing; Mexicans account for the largest chunk, at 57 percent, or 6 million; undocumented migrants now represent about one-third of the total foreign-born US population; the most rapid growth of illegal immigration occurred in states without a long tradition of immigration, especially North Carolina and Arizona. (One number that did surprise me: one in six illegals is a child.)

The AP story doing the rounds describes a "surge" in illegal immigration driven by Mexicans and making a mockery of post 9/11 border-control efforts. True enough, these are big numbers, and they've been getting steadily bigger -- by about 485,000 a year since 2000. But I notice that more illegal immigrants came to the US in the boom years of 1995 and 1999 than did between 2000 and 2004 (3.6 and 3.1 million, respectively); this doesn't suggest to me that we've got a handle on illegal immigration; but nor does it tell me the problem's gotten totally out of hand, which you'd assume from the tenor of the coverage. Just something to bear in mind as Bush gets together with Vicente Fox and the usual suspects renew their calls for draconian anti-immigrant measures.

On a lighter note: British dentistry in crisis! (No, really.)

—By

| Mon Mar. 21, 2005 12:20 PM PST

"There is no dentistry crisis, [British health] minister insists"

The Onion? Austin Powers? No, sadly, the above is a headline from today's London Guardian. Turns out there's a shortage of dentists in Britain such that less than half the population is registered with one. For for those of us British expatriates who've labored, by example and argument, to combat the widely shared idea that Brits are dentally challenged -- well, let's just say this development sets us back years.

"We are bringing in 1,000 dentists between now and the autumn," [said the British health minister.] We are at this moment negotiating with the British Dental Association an improved contract to bring dentists back into the [National Health Service].

"We're encouraging retired dentists to come out of retirement and join the NHS again, so we are actually taking action at this moment to try to solve this problem. We accept there is a serious problem and intend to put it right."

While they wait for aged dentists to dust off the old drill, and younger ones to be recruited, authorities in Scotland are handing out free toothpaste and toothbrushes to children. Oh, the shame!

Is torture really all that bad?

Mon Mar. 21, 2005 11:58 AM PST

This question seems to be getting continual play. Take Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz: he thinks that if the U.S. is going to torture people no matter what, "it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice." He even went so far as to recommend a sticking a sterilized needle under fingernails as a good, non-lethal method of torture. And it's not just Dershowitz taking a soft stance on torture.

The fact that the media has been so slow and reluctant to use the word "torture," and to publish the nasty truth of the sanctioning of torture readily evident in published military reports reveals a more deeply-seated belief that torture may not be all that bad—especially if we're talking about torturing "bad" people. People don't like the word "torture," so the CIA has tried to come up with something else. Last Thursday, CIA Director Porter Goss was challenged by Sen. John McCain about the CIA's use of "waterboarding", in which a prisoner is made to believe that he will drown. Mr. Goss replied only that the approach fell into "an area of what I will call 'professional interrogation techniques.'"

Unfortunately, it seems we've gotten to a point where it's necessary to point out that having a needle pushed under your nail (yes, even if it's sterilized) is unacceptable. And, making a prisoner believe he is going to drown, while it may be a "professional interrogation technique," is still torture. The fact that there is even a discussion about whether or not we should, in times of conflict, consider torture as a viable tactic is absurd.

Dershowitz's argument that "the government is going to do it anyway, so we might as well give it some legal oversight" could be applied to almost any criminal activity employed in wartime. Perhaps the word "torture" has been so oft-repeated that it has dulled our senses. Let's replace it with the word "rape"—arguably a much more successful tactic in wartime than torture has proven to be. A colleague of mine at Mother Jones has written about the widespread campaign of rape an efficient war-time tactic: "Rape has been recognized and implemented by its perpetrators as an effective means of breaking down a society and as a strategic means towards achieving military ends." So just because rape will continue to be used in conflict anyway, and successfully achieves its goals, should a country legally sanction it, or regulate it?

If we've gotten to the point where the only way we can obtain intelligence, and prevent future acts of terrorism is through such an unreliable means as torture, we're in trouble. This administration has often been criticized for trying to reduce complex issues into oversimplified arguments of "right" and "wrong," "good" and "bad." But here is a case in which the subtleties of language, and the law, have no place.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Now on the Mother Jones homepage: Sacrificial Ram

—By

| Mon Mar. 21, 2005 11:07 AM PST

New today on the Mother Jones home page (and in the current issue of the magazine): Sacrificial Ram, by Daniel Duane. Not your typical MoJo story, this. Duane, a card-carrying Sierra Club member and outdoor type, recently tagged along on a "conservation hunt" in the Mexican desert for the majestic -- and endangered -- bighorn ram. That's right, conservation hunt. Sounds like a term cooked up by the same folks who brought us "Compassionate Conservatism" and "Clear Skies" -- but, no, it's for real, and it works like this: Conservationists sell off the right (at a cool $60,000 a pop) to kill a couple of sheep each year, with the revenue going into conservation efforts. And it looks like the approach is paying off: since the hunts began, the bighorn population has increased fourfold.

Don't buy it? Well, if my inbox is any guide, you're not alone: plenty of readers have written in to give us hell. (One of the more polite emails ran as follows: "This is a classic case of 'cognitive dissonance.' Only a turncoat could get so enthusiaistic about supporting something he vehemently opposed in the past. Shortly, Duane will probably go to Falluja and give a glowing account about 'how democracy is taking root among the gun pocked ruins...'") But roughly equal numbers have praised the article -- and the approach. ("Daniel Duane understands ... and all it took was an open mind and one experience.") Read the article and judge for yourself. Also, check out a Mother Jones interview with Daniel Duane where he explains how he went, over the course of the hunt, from weirded-out skeptic to gung-ho proponent of conservation hunting -- won round to the idea of shooting sheep to save them.

Opportunity, security, volatility

—By

| Mon Mar. 21, 2005 10:42 AM PST

Daniel Gross, one of my favorite columnists around, had a great New York Times piece over the weekend explaining why voters are so resistant to changes in Social Security. In the end, Americans suffer enough income volatility as it is:

The factors that functioned as internal shock absorbers for families have weakened. And so, too, have external buffers. Over the last three decades, the percentage of workers covered by defined-benefit pension plans and employer-provided health insurance - guarantees that provide ballast for fluctuating incomes - has declined. Add this to the trend of rising volatility - especially for people in the lower and middle income levels - and it's easy to understand the reluctance to transform a government program that guarantees seniors an income.

The whole piece deserves a look. It's also worth noting, as Mark Schmitt explained nicely last week, that income security doesn't need to be incompatible with opportunity. Social Security doesn't make people lazy or dependent, it doesn't stifle growth or creativity—if anything it boosts opportunity by allowing many people to move from job to job without fear of losing their pensions. There are ways to create an opportunity society without watching the majority of Americans fall prey to the vicious income swings and devastating shocks that Gross so clearly describes.

Schiavo spectacle

—By

| Mon Mar. 21, 2005 10:06 AM PST

There's not much to say about the political firestorm over Terry Schiavo; it's sickening, and thoroughly depressing, but at this point it's about what you'd expect from the modern day GOP. What's that? Tom DeLay is under investigation for corruption? Never mind! He can always just use his bully pulpit to attack Michael Schiavo personally—a rather gross abuse of power, if you think about it. What's that? Gov. George W. Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 to "allow hospitals ... [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree"? Never mind! The Schiavo case is, um, different, and demands that president leave his ranch in Crawford and jet back to Washington. (Lindsay Beyerstein has much, much more.)

At any rate, for an extremely patient discussion of both the medical and ethical issues surrounding this case, see this post by hilzoy over at Obsidian Wings. By now, of course, there's really no sense in reasoning with the Schiavo fanatics—the whole goal here, after all, is to put on a gruesome little spectacle, and Republicans just want the chance to rally up the "base" with a bit of symbolism, since they have no intention of ever giving the Christian Right anything substantial (a ban on abortion, say, or an amendment against gay marriage). But read hilzoy's post anyway; it's important to note that this isn't about the "right to live" or other such nonsense, but about the right to refuse medical care. The latter right, if I'm not mistaken, is practically part of the Republican platform, so I'm not sure what the big deal is here.

UPDATE: Judd Legum has some poll numbers on this. Taking a family member off life support is a difficult issue, and one I've thankfully never had to go through, but it's safe to say that no choice will ever be free of pain or tragedy. Still, the whole point here is that the federal government should stay out of that decision. The overwhelming majority of Americans can see that—most people, it seems, would prefer not to have their comatose wife or son or mother trotted out before Congress for a big TV-focused political extravaganza. Though the cable news channels apparently think otherwise.

Clay Shaw's "free lunch" compromise

—By

| Mon Mar. 21, 2005 9:39 AM PST

Over the weekend David Broder, dean of Beltway insider-ism, unveiled his grand compromise plan for Social Security in the Washington Post. The details are a bit cryptic, but basically, Rep. Clay Shaw (R-FL) wants to borrow $3.7 trillion, have individuals invest it in the stock market, and earn such high rewards that a) they can give most of the money back so as to the government to bring the program into long-term balance, and b) hopefully keep an extra chunk of change for themselves.

No cuts, no tax hikes, no pain, it's perfect! Except for all the borrowing. Ah, the borrowing... It's worth explaining why all that borrowing is so horrendous. Right now, of course, the federal deficit is very large, and foreign central banks are already getting a bit full from munching on dollars to pay for it. So issuing $3.7 trillion in new debt could have a catastrophic effect on the bond markets. Economists like Brad Setser find that scenario quite plausible indeed.

But more to the point, the assumption undergirding all this borrowing money for Social Security is that eventually we can bring the program into long-term balance, fund the program's future obligations, and happily repay that debt later on. But that, too, ignores the price of borrowing now. So long as our debt doesn't grow any faster than the economy grows, it's fairly manageable. But at a certain point, when the deficit grows to a certain size, those borrowing costs start compounding and the national debt accelerates faster than the economy grows. Last week, Max Sawicky of the Economic Policy Institute released an important paper (PDF) showing that this is already likely to be the case under the existing Bush budget—the national debt will be 130 percent of GDP in 2055. Under this little Armageddon scenario, of course, Congress of the future will go into full panic mode and all Social Security benefits will be at risk of massive, massive cuts.

Clay Shaw's compromise plan only hastens Armageddon. There are no free lunches here, and pretending that we can get around benefit cuts or tax hikes merely by borrowing our problems away is, to be blunt, insane. Otherwise, why not borrow $10 trillion today, put it in the stock market, and use the returns to pay for health care, defense, apple pies, sports cars for everyone? But of course we don't propose that, and David Broder should no better.