Political MoJo

New at Mother Jones

| Thu May. 5, 2005 12:30 PM PDT

Zero Tolerance: Is the Bush administration's abolitionist approach to sex trafficking doing more harm than good? By Lisa Katayama.

Do Something... But what?: The new AU deployment won't stop the genocide in Darfur. But what other options are there? By Bradford Plumer

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Fiduciary Shmiduciary

| Thu May. 5, 2005 10:50 AM PDT

We all know that the Bush administration continues to waste millions in taxpayer dollars pimping a Social Security phase-out scheme that no one even wants. Worse, his Bamboozlepalooza tour is anti-efficient: the more people hear, the less they like. So what's a poor president to do? Easy. Whine about all the money your opponents are spending:

The Bush administration has warned the nation's biggest labor federation that union-run pension funds may be breaking the law in opposing President Bush's Social Security proposals.

In a letter on Tuesday to the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the Department of Labor said it was "very concerned" that pension plans might be spending workers' money to "advocate a particular result in the current Social Security debate."

Blah, blah. This is all very silly. But there's a more important point here that Nathan Newman touches on. Why shouldn't pension money be used for this sort of thing? After all, the fate of labor density here in America rests, to some extent, on whether or not Bush's anti-worker agenda can be stopped in its tracks. Under most current rules, pension managers are supposed to adhere to certain fiduciary standards in which they're only supposed to maximize returns on their investments. Conservatives cry foul whenever they hear about some pension manager doing "activist" investing of some sort or other. (See William Greider's article here for more on this growing practice, and the rationale behind it.) And yet taking action to oppose the Bush administration really is yet another way to maximize those returns—perhaps the best way.

Lynndie England Trial Farce

Wed May. 4, 2005 5:29 PM PDT

The latest news on the Lynndie England case:

A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, saying he was not convinced the Army reservist who appeared in some of the most notorious photos in the scandal knew her actions were wrong at the time.

Now the way military law works is that the judge could have accepted a guilty plea only if England was able to prove that she knew at the time that what she was doing was wrong. Hence, the judge must verify that England wasn't simply talked into a guilty plea by her lawyers or others. This latest ruling resulted in a mistrial, and the case will now be reviewed, with military authorities deciding what charges, if any, will be brought against England.

The mistrial was declared after Pvt. Charles Graner, with whom England was accused of conspiring to maltreat detainees, testified for the defense. He told the judge that "the pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash at Abu Ghraib were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards." But when England pleaded guilty on Monday, she told the judge that "she knew that the pictures were being taken purely for the amusement of the guards."

There are still a lot of questions to be answered here. First of all, why is England trying to take the fall for the abuses when someone higher up—namely, Graner—already insisted that he was innocent and that he was simply following orders? It could be that, since Graner was found guilty anyway, England's lawyers just assumed she would be found guilty as well. But that doesn't explain why England's attorneys would call Graner as a defense witness when it seemed pretty obvious that he was going to muck up the "guilty" defense. Graner, after all, maintains to this day that he and the other Abu Ghraib guards were just following orders from higher-up interrogators.

But even more perplexing than the inconsistencies in the defense's pursuit of a "guilty" plea is the fact that they didn't push for a non-guilty plea. There's enough evidence in the military reports thus far, and in the FOIA documents that have been made public, to implicate higher-ups in the detainee abuses. Add this compelling evidence to Graner's testimony, and it makes you wonder why England's attorneys weren't pushing to expose the larger truth.

Some Terrorists Less Bad Than Others

Wed May. 4, 2005 2:16 PM PDT

Last month, Cuba and Venezuela were both up in arms over rumors that the U.S. might be harboring Luis Posada Carriles. Carriles, you see, is a Cuban exile who is wanted in Venezuela for the bombing of a Cuban airliner in the mid-70s. Carriles has also claimed responsibility for multiple bombings of Havana tourist spots in the 90s. His' lawyer, meanwhile, has told the press that Carriles' had applied for asylum in the U.S. and said "his client's asylum application would be based partly on his claim that he worked 'directly and indirectly' for the CIA for years, and had thus helped US interests."

And yet, when the Venezuelan Supreme Court ruled yesterday that they are seeking Carriles' extradition due to the fact that he is a Venezuelan citizen, the State Department acted oblivious. Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega noted that the U.S. can't seem to find Carriles, remarking, "I don't even know that he is in the United States." Noriega, not able to resist a jab at Cuba, referred to Cuban accusations against Carriles as "a completely manufactured issue." That's right. Because here in America, suspected terrorists are always innocent until proven... oh, wait.

Fighting AIDS with Morals

Wed May. 4, 2005 1:12 PM PDT

This past March, the Bush administration was pressuring the UN to stop promoting needle-exchange programs in the campaign to decrease HIV/AIDS worldwide. Now the administration is continuing on with its abstinence-only bent.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has, in the past few years, been offering grants to help other countries fight HIV and AIDS, but only on the condition that they condemn prostitution and keep funds from the treatment of sex workers. The BBC reports: "Much of the spending is being channeled to programs that advocate abstinence, rather than condom use, and cannot be used…to treat prostitutes." Brazil recently turned down some $40 million in USAID funds because of concerns that this clause would neuter their treatment policies which have been widely successful in keeping infection rates down. Indeed, the Brazilian AIDS program is seen as a model for other countries to follow. And one of the key components of their success has been treating infected sex workers and their clients.

While Brazil will be losing out on crucial funds from USAID, other countries, including Germany, are helping to fund Brazil's programs, without demanding that the country compromise their most successful strategies. But other countries may not be in a position to turn down U.S. funding. USAID's faith-based initiatives are favoring certain groups, mostly those whose abstinence-only policies are not as successful as targeted campaigns focusing on high-risk populations (sex workers, intravenous drug users) and condom education. Check out a 2002 list of countries that received USAID money—and more importantly, who is receiving the money. It's not likely that the Diocese of Kigali in Rwanda will find any problem with passing up educating and treating Rwandan sex workers for abstinence-only education. Pressuring countries into overlooking crucial strategies (or selectively giving the money to people who will) that have proven effective in the name of "morals" is not simply irresponsible. Rather, it effectively confers a huge share of responsibility for the lives that could have been saved squarely on this administration's shoulders.

A Stem Cell Canard Returns!

| Wed May. 4, 2005 11:59 AM PDT

In the National Review Kathryn Jean Lopez is touting, once again, adult-stem-cell research as the wave of the future, arguing that "embryonic-stem-cell is not the only hope for mankind," and hence, there's no need to pursue it. After all, adult stem cells are already being used for a variety of cures, whereas no one has ever been healed by embryonic stem cells. Well, okay, but nothing here logically rules out the future utility or even necessity of embryonic cells. Obviously the best thing to do from a scientific standpoint would be to pursue both—which, as it happens, is exactly what the International Society for Stem Cell Research has recommended.

Lopez then cites the pro-adult-stem-cell work of Michael Fumento, whose work on stem cell research was reviewed in Nature Biotech thusly:

The imprint of Fumento's worldview is also evident in his chapter on stem cell research. It is clear that he finds embryonic stem cell research morally problematic. Yet, according to Fumento, the ethical dilemma over funding for embryo research could be rendered obsolete if focus were placed instead on adult stem cell research. Starting with the answer that adult stem cell research is good and embryonic stem cell research is bad, Fumento devotes his chapter on the topic to arguing that only adult stem cell research offers the potential for treatments and cures within the next few years, whereas much doubt clouds the possibility for success with embryonic research.

He also attempts to debunk the claim that adult stem cells are more limited in their plasticity than their embryonic counterparts, and argues that adult stem cells "may be superior in all ways." Fumento insists that the embryonic stem cell research movement has been spearheaded by scientists with strong economic ties to the research, and that both journalists and politicians have been hoodwinked by the appeals of these scientists and their "disinformation" campaign.

Okay, so Fumento seems less a dispassionate scientist and more of an ideologue, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. But it's also a bit silly to ignore the strong scientific case for embryonic stem cell research: namely, that they are far more plastic than adult stem cells, can be used to generate any tissue in the body, and hence may one day be far more useful for curing degenerative diseases. Adult stem cells are almost certainly not "superior in all ways," although a slew of right-wing researchers keep trumpeting shoddy results to try to prove otherwise. At any rate, the point here is that Lopez morally disapproves of embryonic-stem-cell research. Well, fine, but that's no excuse for pretending to have scientific "evidence" to back up those vague moral feelings.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Airport Security Name Game

Tue May. 3, 2005 12:48 PM PDT

Following 9/11, airports were on security lockdown. An era of arriving many hours before takeoff, in order to go through secondary and tertiary inspections, each with their own mind-boggling line, making the gate where your flight departed seem a veritable promised land. Since 9/11, I've noticed an evolution in airport security. Initially, the criteria for a secondary inspection ("stand with your legs shoulder-width apart, and your arms outstretched, please") seemed to be based largely on individual security officers' discretion. Hence my recollection of being asked to head to the line for a third security inspection after being told by the security officer that she "couldn't handle my name." (Still better than my brother's experience of being pulled over by a police officer and asked, before anything else, if he was Arab.) When I asked what the criteria was for selecting passengers for further inspection, she told me there were "a lot of reasons," and made it clear that if I kept up with this line of questioning, I may not get on my flight.

More impartial methods have since evolved. Now, your boarding ticket may be printed with an "s" indicating you have been selected for a random, more in-depth, security search. But it could be the case that airplane security has jumped from the absurdly subjective to the absurdly objective. Omar Khan, founder of an international business consultancy, today writes of his experience of being on the "master list" of those to be intensively inspected at airports. Khan writes that his highly common name ("In parts of the world, Omar Khan is as common a name as John Smith.") keeps every Omar Khan in security checks for 2 to 3 hours. Khan notes that this kind of search is a waste of resources. U.S. immigration officials told Khan that they had to process the same people time and again because they were not allowed to use their own judgment, and there is no process to avoid the check by obtaining any paperwork in advance. Even pilots and immigration supervisors are repeatedly subject to these checks despite clearing the security checks each time they travel.

There is certainly something to be said for thoroughness when our security is at stake. But it is clearly inefficient, and indeed, dangerous, to allocate limited resources to redundant checks. Khan lays out a strategy that he discussed with immigration officials on how to avoid unnecessarily wasting their time (as well as the many Omar Khans' time) while ensuring safety. It's worth a read. With funding for airport security currently in jeopardy, it's all the more crucial to find the necessary balance between redundant security objectivity, and the sometimes subjective judgment of well-trained security officials—especially since the "no fly" database of names has proven to be quite flawed due to infrequent updating. A process to enable those on the "no fly" list to obtain documentation that would enable them to be quickly cleared by security officials is just common sense, and would result in a system to better "handle" those with non-Anglo names.

What Robin Hood?

| Tue May. 3, 2005 11:17 AM PDT

As usual, E.J. Dionne has a wonderful column on Social Security, lambasting the press for praising the president's supposedly Robin Hood-like proposal for Social Security. Progressive? Please. Taking an axe to every middle-class man, woman, and child in America, and then telling those making under $20,000 a year that they'll be spared from the slaughter, is not what normal people consider progressive. Luckily, Dionne's not among the deluded:

Bush has refused to put his own tax cuts on the table as part of a Social Security fix. Repealing Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $350,000 a year could cover all or most of the 75-year Social Security shortfall. Keeping part of the estate tax in place could cover a quarter to half of the shortfall. Some of the hole could be filled in by a modest surtax on dividends or capital gains.

But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich by making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from the beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy are a pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him.

Ayup. And this underscores how ridiculous the whole debate is. The president has said that "all solutions are on the table" for fixing Social Security, but at the same time he's flatly ruled out tax increases, as well as dedicating any general tax revenue to fixing Social Security. (Unless, of course, we're privatizing the program, in which case he apparently has no problem funneling in trillions of dollars.) Well, that leaves only one option: benefit cuts. And since middle- and low-earners receive most of the program's benefits, that means benefit cuts for them. It doesn't have to be that way, but that's what Bush has chosen. And sure, if you assume from the start that benefit cuts are the only option, then within that framework you're going to look awfully compassionate for shielding the poor from the worst of those cuts. May as well laud a murderer for his "thoughtfulness" because he takes care that no blood stains the carpet.

Who Replaces DeLay?

| Mon May. 2, 2005 5:31 PM PDT

It's hard to follow all the ins and outs of the Tom DeLay scandal, but one question I've long wondered is: Should the big guy get ousted, or forced to resign, or whatever form of ignominy will so sweetly smack him upside the head, well, who would replace him? Thankfully, Brian Montopoli did the legwork over in Slate. Seems that most of the replacement candidates, should they get the job, could step right in and do exactly what DeLay was doing—enforce the strict inter-cronyism between K Street and Capitol Hill, run the House with an iron-and-elephant-sized fist, and ensure that no piece of corporate pork gets left behind—and they could do it without suffering from the constant stench of corruption that seems to follow DeLay around wherever he tromps. Quite the deal!

So at one level it seems like the House GOP Leadership is a mostly well-oiled machine that could keep purring along just fine without DeLay. Maybe. On the other hand, the Bug Man's fall could pave the way for some always-entertaining inter-Republican mud-wrestling for power, the sort of thing that could render the whole caucus filthy, slipping all over each other, and wholly preoccupied for a good long while. Now that would be a grand day in Washington.

Sweet, Sweet Strategic Clarity...

| Mon May. 2, 2005 5:12 PM PDT

My colleague Onnesha is fond of pointing out that the vague assumptions that undergird the "war on terror" can lead to all sorts of strategic blunders. Well, here's another one, as reported by Joseph Braude in the New Republic. Apparently the U.S. is trying to induce various Arab countries to cooperate with NATO, sharing intelligence and the like, in order to hunt down various Islamist terrorists. Okay.

But over the past few months, the administration seems to have shifted its grand strategy a bit. To judge from various State Department announcements, along with America's recent semi-embrace of both HAMAS and Hezbollah as viable political entities, it seems we're no longer concerned with radical Islamic groups per se. No, the real targets have become, as USAID administrator Andrew Natsios said last week, "autocratic governments led in many instances by militantly secular figures." That is, the root causes of Islamic extremism.

Well, fair enough—and to some extent, I think this is a sound idea, in certain situations. The problem here is that it's awfully difficult to get Arab despots to cooperate with NATO in hunting down dead-enders from al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups if those same despots now need to be worried that NATO cooperation is just a backdoor means of undermining their rule. Certainly that's what Arab liberals are hoping will happen. So it's no surprise that one Egyptian foreign ministry adviser responded angrily to the new policy shift: "We were surprised that [NATO] has decided that it has a role in the political process, and in the process of democratic reform." Oops. That doesn't quite sound like a despot (er... make that "friend-of-despot") ready to name names and share intelligence.

At any rate, the point here is that we really ought to decide what, exactly, our priorities for Middle Eastern policy are. No kidding, I know, but still. Do we want to put overt pressure on Arab dictatorships to change their ways, and side with Islamist groups such as HAMAS and Hezbollah, so long as they contribute to the great tide of reform? Or, alternatively, do we strengthen our alliances with Arab dictatorships in order to hunt down al Qaeda and other militant groups, alienating Islamists in the process? Or, perhaps, a little of both? (As Braude points out, different Arab countries are, well, different: the small Gulf monarchies, for instance, will probably cooperate with NATO no matter what because they're most concerned about al Qaeda and aren't too worried about U.S. pressure to reform.) It's also worth noting that those Arab liberals may actually be right on: as Steven Cook has argued, despot-friendly militaries are often a prime force for modernization and reform, and increased NATO cooperation with various Middle Eastern armies may be the best "sneaky" way to promote change in some instances.

Unfortunately, though, sometimes all of these various goals contradict, as Braude shows, especially if the Bush administration remains unclear on what, exactly we hope to achieve in the Middle East. On that note, Nadezhda's long post on a possible "marginalization" strategy that's emerging in the region is well worth reading.