With our current economic catastrophe already leading and lending to endless bailouts and massive stimulus packages, it is extremely important to have a clear grasp on histories teachings of similar situations. After all, if you fail to learn from history you are bound to repeat it. And, because FDR’s New Deal is so misunderstood, and is the most compatible comparison to our current situation, chances are good we will be repeating the same mistakes that created and perpetuated the Great Depression.
The Great Depression is an extremely misunderstood period of American History. The commonly regurgitated myths that Hoover’s free market ideals got us into the depression and FDR’s timely government interventions got us out are nothing but fanatic lies. Hoover’s policies contained no resemblance of a laissez fair government and Roosevelt’s market regulations only led to a depression within a depression.
Mainstream discourse claims that Hoover’s free market ideals were the responsible cause of the Great Depression; yet, this could not be further from the truth. After all, FDR’s campaign against Hoover was based on a platform of a free market economy. FDR continually criticized Hoover for too much Government intervention and careless spending . Take this quote spoken by FDR during his 1932 presidential campaign as a prime example:
“I accuse the present Administration (Hoover’s) of being the greatest spending Administration in peace time in all American history - one which piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs of reduced earning power of the people. Bureaus and bureaucrats have been retained at the expense of the taxpayer…. We are spending altogether too much money for government services which are neither practical nor necessary.”
Of course, once elected president, FDR completely recanted everything promised during his campaign. It was a member of FDR’s “Brain Trust”, Rexford Tugwell, who admitted that “practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs Hoover started” - the same Hoover programs that FDR rejected as impractical or unnecessary. Furthermore, Hoover was even responsible for starting many of the farm programs that FDR would later use to destroy farmers crops and livestock.
One of the most devastating market interventions taken by the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which used government regulation to raise tariffs by an average of 59% on some 25,000 items. This Tariff eliminated competition with foreign countries within our borders. Although, that may seem like a great idea to stimulate our local economy, what Hoover failed to realize was that countries where we once pushed great quantities of exports retaliated by shutting their borders on us. The effect was a drastically painful strain on American business. What followed were extreme protectionist policies throughout the world that precipitated a malicious international trade war.
To further exemplify Hoover’s steadfast belief in Government interventionism we can look at the Revenue Act of 1932. Hoover signed this into law, and the income tax on Americans was doubled. At a time when Americans needed their money most, the Government decided it necessary to confiscate more and more of it.
Obviously an accurate study of Hoover’s domestic and foreign policies prove that he was in no way a believer of laissez-fair economics. Of course, the policies of FDR that followed were more drastic measures of economic regulation. But, this does not somehow make Hoover a free market President.
In 1932, the American populous elected Franklin Roosevelt under a platform dedicated to reducing government spending by 25%, enforcing a gold standard, and balancing budgets. The mordant truth is that they were about to get the exact opposite.
FDR wasted no time on refuting his promise to adhere to a gold standard. The removal of the gold standard, which once permitted governments bonds to be reimbursed in gold, allowed FDR to implement more and more deficit spending with little impunity. For the government no longer had to provide anything of real value to their lenders. Instead, US dollars hot off the printing press could be used to reimburse the lenders. How else could our Government have afforded the 73% increase in federal debt they would see from 1933-1936?
The most devastating of FDR’s gold policies though, was the confiscation of citizen’s private holdings of gold. FDR actually inculcated US citizens with the propaganda that holding gold was unwarranted and harmful to the country. Of course, this is a complete fallacy that alone had hardly any effect on the citizens that held gold. That is why Roosevelt found it necessary to sign an executive order that subjected all Americans possessing gold to a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.
The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), a law passed by FDR on June 16, 1933, allowed the President to regulate industry, business cartels, and monopolies. The belief that the President was capable of running the economy proved very foolish. Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, two Great Deal historians, concluded that the NIRA extended the length of the depression by up to 60%. A lot of this was caused by the forced increase in wages. Cole and Ohanian state it best:
“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,”
Employers are not capable of paying their employees more when they are making fewer sales and receiving less profit from the sales. Raising wage standards did nothing but increase the unemployment level.
Although it is a very daunting task to quickly portray the negligence in FDR’s job creation programs — the easiest way is to look at the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and Works Progress Administration (WPA). These two programs together worked as a perfect storm removing any remnants that were left of a free market. They created and enforced complete regulation of hundreds of industries. They also promoted job creation that lacked any purpose or productivity. No true or lasting wealth was created by these programs.
It has been revealed by many economists that the NIRA increased the cost of doing business by up to 40%. The negligence of the NIRA is further exemplified when looking at the five months leading up to the passage of the NIRA, which saw factory employment increase by 25 percent, and comparing that to the six months after the NIRA was passed, where industrial production dropped by 25%.
Another New Deal program, passed on May 12th, 1937, was the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA). The AAA was used to subsidize farmers who reduced their production of specific crops. What happened, in addition to farmers cutting back on production, was the destruction of millions of acres of crops by the AAA. Ten million acres of cotton, 30 million bushels of corn, and 6 million baby pigs were all destroyed with the intentions of maintaining specific price levels. Scarcity did promote higher price levels for food across the US. Unfortunately, this came at a time when the secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace, was declaring to the public that the biggest problem facing society is the ability to produce enough food. The true fatuity of FDR is demonstrated by the Agriculture Adjustment Act and the fact that while we were destroying vast amounts of our farmers’ crops we were simultaneously importing these same crops from abroad.
FDR’s abundant increases in taxes were very influential in prolonging the calamity of the Great Depression as well. Roosevelt drastically increased taxes on all private business that managed to retain some of their net income. For example, a company that retained 70% of their net income was taxed 73%. Needless to say, little opportunity for expansion was afforded to those companies that were capable of it. The 1930’s saw private investment decrease by $3.1 billion because of taxation policies like this.
State income taxes doubled from 1930-1940. The highest tax bracket was raised to 79%. FDR even tried to tax any income in excess of $25,000 at the rate of 100% by passing an executive order. However, congress shortly thereafter disposed of the executive order. FDR has been one of the most economically uneducated and incapable presidents in the history of the United States and his tax policies are just one justification of this.
Although textbooks and liberally biased historians consistently place FDR as one of the greatest US Presidents, it is undeniable that his social and economic policies were idiotic and injurious. Hoover, also a bitter interventionist, was able to get the Great Depression rolling fast enough for FDR’s long arm to push it off a cliff. A cliff that remained unclimbed for a decade due to Roosevelt’s unrelenting grip on the US economy.
Journalist and writer Joe Sobran, once said “Today, wanting someone else’s money is called ‘need’, wanting to keep your own money is called ‘greed’, and ‘compassion’ is when the politicians arrange the transfer.” This was definitely the pre-eminent notion propagated under Roosevelt. And, unless the Obama Administration immediately stops perpetuating tried and failed economic actions of the past, it will be the necessary notion of tomorrow’s economic policies.
-Colin
Obama’s lofty campaign rhetoric consistently demanded change on many of the most imperative and noxious issues confronting the US. Three of the most crucial areas this change was promised were: preventive detention, the use of military tribunal systems, and government transparency. Obama’s outspoken plans of reform on all three of these matters, despite being grounded as only campaign promises, left one with at least a sliver of hope; a sliver that would subside very shortly after the election.
The fact that change has not yet come regarding the aforementioned issues is not surprising. What is surprising, the factions of people that still remain steadfast Obama supporters based on the rhetorical nuances in his speeches rather than the reality demonstrated by his actions. Thus far, Obama is continuing preventive detention and military tribunals as well as expanding government secrecy privileges.
Preventive detention, the act of indefinitely detaining a person with no proven crimes or violation of law, has been embraced by President Obama. On May 21st, Obama’s National Security Speech made it quite clear that he would be continuing the policy of preventive detention. Ironically, he delivered the speech, confirming that some detainees are not obligated to a fair trial, while standing directly in front of The Constitution — the very piece of paper which guarantees a fair trial to anyone detained by the US government. Senator Russ Feingold put it best with his written response to the approach outlined by Obama.
“any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional.”
As a former student, and teacher, of the Constitution, Obama should be quite aware that preventive detention isn’t “likely unconstitutional” but most definitely unconstitutional. By accepting and continuing preventive detention policy, Obama is further undermining any return to the rule of law that this country was founded on.
Military tribunals, another issue where Obama portrayed outspoken angst for some time, have also been added into his repertoire of unconstitutional policy now deemed acceptable. After suspending the use of military tribunals shortly after taking office, Obama decided to revisit the subject several months later. On May 15th, his position was reversed and the military trials were revived.
Reinstating the use of military tribunals is another sad example of President Obama recanting his pre-election stance on a crucial issue and confirming his alliance to a failed policy initiated by President Bush. It also represents one of the many contradictions found within the Obama administration. Take the following quote spoken by Obama on August 7th, 2008 as a prime example:
“I have faith in our JAGs. As president, I’ll close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.”
Quite possibly the greatest contradicting represented by the Obama administration so far is the increased government transparency promised, but the expanded state secrecy being delivered. After eight years of unprecedented state secrets and government concealment Americans were starving for government transparency . However, Obama has done nothing to fulfill his promises on this issue. In fact, he has actually done a great deal to expand many of the powers created by Bush. Here are some quotes from Obama that demonstrate how dedicated he supposedly is to government transparency.
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government” January 28th, 2009
“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency” January 21st, 2009
Again, Obama’s rhetoric could not be more misrepresentation of his actions. On May 13th, Obama chose “secrecy over disclosure” with the blocking of the court ordered release of new torture photos.
Obama aligned himself with the Bush policy of warrant less wiretapping when he “urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.”
Furthermore, the Obama administration has objected to “the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons”.
For a person supposedly dedicated to “an unprecedented level of openness”, Obama is sure working hard to remove transparency from many of the most important issues. Transparency is an essential aspect to an honest and efficient government. Obama knows this, and repeatedly promised it. Yet, since taking office, his overwhelming dedication to maintaining state secrets and government omnipotence has reaffirmed him as another megalomaniac turned US president. Following Obama’s national security speech, Glenn Greenwald, an insightful political writer for salon.com, revealed the Obama persona well:
“The speech was fairly representative of what Obama typically does: effectively defend some important ideals in a uniquely persuasive way and advocating some policies that promote those ideals (closing Guantanamo, banning torture tactics, limiting the state secrets privilege) while committing to many which plainly violate them”
Although many are aware, or becoming aware, of the blatant hypocrisies present within the Obama administration, it is still unbelievable the percentage of the populous that hold allegiance to Obama. Their justification however, is based on accepting the nuances in his rhetoric as the confirmation that change is underway in our government. Unfortunately, this acquiescence is not capable of removing the true nature of Obama’s implemented policies and actions.
-Colin
A little more than a month ago, a US airstrike in the Farah Province of Afghanistan killed at least 140 innocent civilians. Until this week, US Government and Military officials refused to accept the massive civilian death toll proposed by Afghani officials. Instead, several outlandish scenarios were devised to divert the atrocity of the event onto the supposed cunningness of the Taliban. After a month of government quibble, a Pentagon spokesman has finally admitted error on part of the US.
Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, recently stated “There were some problems with some tactics, techniques and procedures or … the way in which close air support was supposed to have been executed in this case.” He also went on to admit that the number of deaths projected by Afghan officials was accurate.
For the US, this is not the first opportunity to learn from our rash policy in Afghanistan. Just last year, a similar US air strike in Azizabad, Afghanistan left 90 civilians dead. In similar fashion the US made an attempt to place the fault at the helm of the Taliban only to later acknowledge the atrocity with the issuing of a directive to reduce similar civilian deaths in the future.
Who would think a directive intended to reduce similar civilian deaths in the future would precede the single worst incident of civilian deaths since we invaded Afghanistan in 2001? Furthermore, these are not isolated incidents. US Airstrikes occur quite frequently in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and almost always carry civilian death counts higher than the insurgent death counts. Just a few days ago, a US airstrike in Ghor province Afghanistan left 10 civilians dead while the intended target escaped alive.
The recent admittance of fault in the Farah killings paired with this week’s Ghor province airstrike has prompted a review of the the tactics being used. The newly appointed General McChrystal will take lead responsibility on reviewing the tactics that led to the incident. However, skepticism that any change will come from the review is definitely warranted. It is likely that McChrystal will deliver another shallow directive lacking any accountability. After all, investigations carried out in the past have been incapable of preventing similar devastation moving forward.
Ultimately, it is going to take much more than a directive, or a hasty investigation, to get US Afghan policy aligned with US values. The delayed recognition and acceptance by the Pentagon, of its callous military actions, must be replaced by a policy demonstrating restraint and responsibility. Avoiding similar failures in the future would prove that a lesson has finally been learned. A lesson that has been neglected at the expense of innocent civilians’ lives for far too long. Let’s hope for a time where the complete disregard for non-American life, currently demonstrated by US foreign policy, is no longer revealed by the vestiges found in the daily news.
-Colin
On Friday, June 5th, one day after President Obama picked Philip Mudd to fill a top intelligence post in the Homeland Security Department, Mudd declined the position under the claim that it could act as a “distraction” to the Obama agenda.
Of course the appointment of someone to top intelligence post at the Department of Homeland Security that has known ties to the implementation of torture techniques would seem to be an obvious “distraction” to the anti-torture agenda Obama clings to. It would also seem to be an open admission that Obama’s condemnation of torture techniques is a hoax.
As director of the Office of Terrorism Analysis under President Bush, Mudd was aware of the harsh interrogation techniques underway. He is directly tied to the interrogation technique known as waterboarding - the same technique that President Obama declared as torture.
Mudd is also associated with orchestrating several absurd “ethnic targeting” programs. One program was an Iranian Terrorist Identification program that used the authority of the FBI to dig through consumer data and identify Middle Eastern food sale records. This was quickly stopped by the Head of the FBI’s criminal investigation division for its sheer lunacy.
Obama has acknowledged that Mudd was involved with interrogation programs he has declared as torture. Amazingly, an aide to the President said Obama still believed that “Mr. Mudd was the best person for the Homeland Security post.”
-Colin
North Korea’s underground test of an atomic weapon on May 25th is certainly a disconcerting event. A recalcitrant nation progressing towards nuclear capabilities is never settling. It highlights the shortcomings of a world meant to be progressing towards nuclear de-escalation. But, just as importantly, it allows US officials to carry on the facade that our rhetoric is indeed consistent with our actions.
Just last October we signed an agreement assuring nuclear cooperation with India; an unstable country itself . This agreement, which provides materials and equipment to India for a nuclear energy program, could easily act (and maybe already has) as a catalyst for a nuclear arms race in Asia. Everything needed to produce a nuclear bomb is provided within the agreement. The hope is that tight regulation of the program will avoid this outcome.
Our credulity in an unstable nation to use the provided technology solely to advance a civilian nuclear energy programs is somewhat irrelevant. Much importance resides in the fact that the agreement brings hostility and tension to a region that desperately needs accord. Additionally, it leaves nations not on our ally list eagerly searching for other means of access to nuclear capability.
Furthermore, our dissent towards North Korea as a possible arms provider to other hostile nations is neither reasonable nor justified - mainly because the United States is the primary supplier of arms to developing and unstable nations. No need to worry about North Korea arming our enemies; we will do that.
In 2006 and 2007, Pakistan ($3.5 billion), Iraq ($2.2 billion), Israel ($2.2 billion), Afghanistan ($1.9 billion) and Colombia ($580 million) were the five biggest beneficiaries of U.S. weapon sales. These five countries are all highly volatile. In total, 2007 saw $32 billion of American military sales disbursed around the world. Nothing changed in 2008. The pentagon engaged in $12.5 billion of military sales to Iraq alone.
Simple analysis of our Government’s overzealous worldwide weaponry contributions leads to one conclusions. In order to criticize and sanction other countries actions, we must first act in accordance with our discourse. So…… Stop arming combative zones around the world!
I do not disagree with our leaders when they claim that a nuclear armed North Korea is unacceptable. It is the hypocrisy we spew that I disagree with. Regrettably, this is another perfect example of our country declaring the way the world should act while maintaining the opposite. Whether the new administration makes a point of aligning our rhetoric and policy remains to be seen. Until then, I ask, how long will we be able to hold other nations accountable to standards we fall short of?
-Colin
Just over a week ago the United States Senate astonishingly voted 90-6 to deny President Obama the funds to relocate Guantanamo Bay prisoners to detention centers in the US. Some legislators claimed that the administration’s relocation plans were too undeveloped, still the message seems clear from Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle: “Not in my back yard”! The NIMBY phenomenon, which usually characterizes the placement of environmental hazards, now applies to Guantanamo Bay detainees. This blatant vote against administration policy further increases the logistical challenges of closing the prison facility.
Guantanamo Bay began housing “enemy combatants”, as they were classified by the Bush administration, in 2002 and remains highly controversial around the globe. Former vice president Dick Chaney, who was the architect for much of the Guantanamo overhaul, still claims that 21st century warfare necessitates a redefinition of prisoner rights. In other words, “enemy combatants” are not subject to the Geneva Convention or the US Constitution. This argument has been rejected time and time again on legal grounds and the US Supreme Court rebuked the theory, voting in 2006 to restore Habeas Corpus to Guantanamo Bay “enemy combatants”.
Since 2002 conditions at the Guantanamo Prison have sparked international outrage and words/phrases like sleep deprivation, stress positions, and waterboarding are now part of public discourse. Even today reports of prisoner abuse continue. Investigative journalist, Jeremy Scahill, recently revealed that squads of military thugs are still “routinely terrorize prisoners, breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and ‘dousing’ them with chemicals”.
Although both major political parties are reluctant to move Guantanamo prisoners onto US soil, Republican leadership in the Senate is sounding the opposition more overtly. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell recently stated: “The American people want to keep terrorists at Guantanamo out of their neighborhoods and off of the battlefield”. This statement is meant to invoke populist fear and is problematic. The shortsighted implication that Guantanamo prisoners are all terrorists is questionable, especially considering the fact that out of the 800 people held there since 2002 only 12 have actually been convicted of crimes. Furthermore, those convictions were obtained through military tribunals, which, according to numerous independent sources such as Amnesty International, were unfair and politically motivated.
Currently 240 prisoners still remain at Guantanamo Bay, many of which who have yet to receive a trial. In order to restore global creditability and move past this dark period of history, prompt closer of Guantanamo Bay is vital and the court of law, US law, should dictate the status of each remaining prisoner. Ironically, an overwhelming majority of the Senate has been totally compliant with the ongoing war on terror, yet has no interest in providing the real-estate to properly and responsibly house terrorist suspects. Instead, the problem is cast off our shores-out of sight, out of mind.
President Obama does have some allies. Democratic Governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter has suggested that some of the detainees could be held in a supermax federal prison in Florence, Colorado, which is approximately 50 miles south of Colorado Springs. This supermax facility is one of the only prisons in the country entirely at supermax level, meaning inmates are kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and not privy to group recreation. This system, which is far more “locked down” than maximum-security prisons, is typically reserved for inmates on death row or who have committed the most heinous crimes. The supermax prison in Colorado is already home to some of the most infamous criminals in the US, including Zacharias Moussaoui, Ted Kaczynski, and Terry Nichols. Approximately 347 convicted terrorists are already being held in supermax prisons around the country. Moreover, no inmate has ever escaped from a supermax federal prison.
Using federal supermax prisons is a secure and responsible way to hold detainees. Beyond that, it would restore much needed transparency to a system that has been plagued with sadistic, clandestine protocol. Without a doubt, moving Guantanamo Bay prisoners to US soil is not politically expedient. Most Republicans simply disagree with the policy; but the Democrats (who have the power to dictate the policy) seem too fearful of the political repercussions or the right wing attack machine. All the same, this issue goes beyond what “polls well”. If our country is to lock away supposed enemies we must do so in a way that is transparent and consistent with the Constitution and international criminal code. Guantanamo Bay has failed in doing so and needs to be replaced.
- Gabe
Worldwide anti-American temperament, created by the previous eight years of our government’s ignorant and bellicose foreign policy, appeared to be shifting with the presidential campaign and election of Barack Obama. People around the world seemed as hopeful for the change he spoke of as Americans were. Unfortunately, many of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy endeavors have done nothing but reassure us that little has changed in Washington. He has failed to complete even the modest task, of developing a more rational and moral foreign policy in the Middle East than we had seen with the Bush Administration.
On January 23rd, just days after Obama’s inauguration, missiles fired from a US drone above northern Pakistan killed 15 people, including three children. Since then, the frequency of these attacks has only increased. The Obama Administration is already responsible for 161 deaths resulting from drone attacks carried out on his watch.
The massive civilian death toll, the creation of 1.5 million refugees, and the growing hostility towards America in Pakistan should be ample reason to recognize our failed policies. Yet, our incessant military fiascos continue. And not only in Pakistan either.
Obama’s Afghanistan policies should also deeply disturb anyone hopeful of an evenhanded foreign policy. The amplification of military aggression in Afghanistan has proven to be extremely detrimental to stabilizing the region.
A May 7th American air strike in Afghanistan killed 147 civilians, 95 of them children. Riots, chants of “Death to America”, and vandalistic activity resulted. Afghan President Karzai has demanded these attacks to stop. A request that is unlikely to be heeded, let alone granted.
The May 7th attacks are the single worst instance of civilian deaths in Afghanistan since we invaded in 2001. Yet, our government has failed to acknowledge the incident. Instead they claim the death toll as an Afghan calumny used to capitalize on the grant we award to the families of killed civilians. We lack the morality to admit that we have carried out a massacre. We have taken the lives of mothers, daughters, fathers, and brothers. But, it is acceptable and necessary. It is part of the “good war” the “right war”– the war that Barack has now made his own.
Obama’s mentality, built off his predecessors, is that in order to keep us safe at home the lives of innocent people in other countries are dispensable. This mentality allows us to bomb sovereign nations where Islamic radicals “may” be present. However, when faulty intelligence (a.k.a. disregard for innocent lives) leads to the killing of civilians it is suddenly the radicals who are to blame. For they have used the innocent civilians as human shields, an act that we could have never predicted. No responsibility will ever be placed on our mighty shoulders. Impunity runs rampant in the United States.
Husain Haqqani, the Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, recently conveyed the American foreign policy problem accurately when he spoke the following passage: “it creates the attitude that the world is a problem for Americans to fix. The reality is that the world is a situation for Americans to understand and deal with.” This notion, that the world is a problem for Americans to fix, perpetuates rash action and strangles sound judgment. The killing carried out by American missiles and bombs in Pakistan and Afghanistan is the perfect example of our rash and thoughtless acts.
Our leaders continually refuse to take a step back and analyze the situation. They refuse to realize that our negligent actions, which spur hostility towards America and aide recruiting efforts of Islamic radicals, are playing directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And, they refuse to acknowledge that our disregard for life and liberty in other countries has reached a level equaling that of the enemies we claim to be fighting. At this point, any anti-American sentiment remaining around the world is more than justified.
-Colin
They that can give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Ben Franklin
One can only image how former University of Chicago law professor, Barack Obama, would have addressed the current constitutional controversy (dare I say crisis) regarding the authorized use of “enhanced” interrogation. After all, he taught constitutional law. Pondering this hypothetical question, it is hard to believe that professor Obama would not have capitalized on this “teachable moment” to showcase due process or executive branch responsibility in following the constitution, or, put more bluntly, the law.
The recently declassified memos from the Bush administration’s Office of Legal Counsel are a haunting, yet systematic description and legal justification for aggressive coercion. In essence the documents are a sobering “How Too” instruction manual for the operation of intimidation. Systematic procedures and medical analysis of detainees (explained below), in their view, kept the experience moderate enough to not be considered torture. For instance, specific directions are given on how to properly support the neck and head of a detainee before slamming him against a wall (technically referred to as “walling” in the memos) and how exactly prisoners should be shackled in order to promote sleep deprivation. Ironically, the interrogators seamed to preserve the health and well being of detainees just enough to continue the violent process. For example, medical doctors were onsite to monitor oxygen levels in the blood during waterboarding and supposedly intervened if the situation became too life threatening.
So do water boarding, walling, and sleep deprivation constitute torture? The Office of United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights defines torture as: “Any act by which severe pain of suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining him or a third person information or a confession…..”.
For the Bush administration “pain” was obviously a relative term. According to Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury, the terms “severe” and “suffering” were imprecise; ergo, the justification and careful development of the enhanced interrogation tool box.
Historically, waterboarding was used during the Spanish Inquistion and recognized as a heinous action even then. The United States army prosecuted Japanese Soldiers during World War II for using such practices and even prosecuted United States soldiers for doing the same. In years past the US State Department prudently classified waterboarding as torture when Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet used it in the 1970s’ and 1980s’ against his political enemies.
The Bush administration can no more rewrite the law, than not be compared to these important historical precedents. For centuries, waterboarding was synonymous with torture and no degree of legalistic gerrymandering changes that. Waterboarding is an extremely painful, violent and terrorizing process. After all, it is simulated drowning. Victims frequently respond with vomiting, extreme panic, and often shock. So lets end the absurd debate regarding the semantics of “severe” and “suffering”. Waterboarding is torture. Period.
Barack Obama admitted that the previous administration morally “went off course” in its war on terror. Truth be told! But did they go “off course” constitutionally? The evidence is strong to suggest that they did. For decades representatives in the UN worked to draft an international code regarding the use and definition of torture. Over 145 countries have signed and ratified this treaty, including the United States in 1994. Article VI, paragraph two of the United States Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
In short, under this statute all international treaties become United States law. Therefore, the eighth amendment, which protects prisoners from “…cruel and unusual punishments…” also applies to non-United States citizens. The argument that detainees are not privy to the eighth amendment is blatantly false and against the constitution.
The current administration classifies Bush era interrogation tactics as torture and Barack Obama should be commended for his promise to suspend such activities. But, his reluctance to encourage legal prosecution against, what are clear constitutional violations, is extremely troublesome and a dangerous precedent. Future administrations will be able to revisit such dark, watery roads with full confidence that they will face little accountability. Obama’s “look to the future” philosophy cannot simply trump the constitution. The president, and congress for that matter, cannot simply ignore the law.
At the very least, an independent council should be appointed to investigate any suspicion of high crimes and misdemeanors by the former administration or any congressional leaders who may or may not have known about the use of waterboarding/torture. A constitutional crisis exists and the integrity of the whole institute is in jeopardy. The president and congressional representatives took an important oath to uphold the constitutional-to follow the law. It is an erroneous breech of duty not to and the United States will continue losing world favor, particularly in Muslim countries, if these issues are not address head-on. Would former University of Chicago law professor, Barack Obama agree with president, Barack Obama? The answer should speak for its self.
-Gabe
H.R. 1207, a nascent bill currently floating around congress, intends to finally add oversight to our unconstitutional “fourth branch” of government, the Federal Reserve. This bill is called the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 and is sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul. This could be a giant step towards exposing the spurious, antiquated policies of our central bank. What is seldom known is that this is not the first inception of a movement against a United States Central Bank. In fact, it is our third.
The first central bank of the Untied States was formed in 1791. The concept was proposed as an impetus to further the credit of the federal government. Essentially, Congress longed for the ability to print their own money, an act that is strictly prohibited by Article I, Section 8, Part 5 of the US Constitution. Despite the intentions of Congress, fiat (paper) money still had little mainstream acceptance and in 1811 the bank was terminated. Although the conventional opinion still rejected the fiat money system, it was quickly gaining acceptance amongst the political elite.
In 1817 the Second Bank of the United States was created. This bank was created to finance a war with Great Britain, a far more nefarious rationale than the premise which the first bank was founded on. Unfortunately, the symbiotic relationship between our country’s central banks and the government’s incessant military expansion has been one of the driving factors necessitating the state bank. By 1832 the second state bank had inevitably created such a disaster of the monetary system that President Andrew Jackson refused to extend the banks charter. In 1836, only nineteen years after its inception, the federal charter for the Second Bank of the U.S. expired.
The third and present bank of the United States was formed in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson signed, against his intuition and logic, the Federal Reserve Act. The following passage refers to Wilson’s signing of the Federal Reserve Act and aptly exemplifies his regret and agony for doing so:
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
-President Woodrow Wilson
The Federal Reserve’s destructive monetary policies are far too many to enumerate here, however there are several policies that should be renowned for their fallaciousness. To begin with, the artificial economic stimulus generated from Fed assigned below market interest rates. The current example of this is the home mortgage crisis. The millions of homes already undergone foreclosure (2.3 million in 2008 alone) can be attributed to the Fed’s below market interest rates and forced lending requirements. The Federal Reserve System implemented an affirmative action lending program and provided the means for banks to make these loans. The means for the loans came from the Federal Reserve’s reduction of the discount rate below 2% for almost two years. The extremely low interest rate set by the Fed, produced a private banking sector now willing to extend loans to people previously unqualified.
A second fallacious policy propagated by the Federal Reserve is dollar debasement. This is perpetuated by an unrelenting printing press. Since 1913 the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power. The currency in circulation plus checkable deposits, known as M1, is constantly under flux due to the Federal Reserve’s loose management of its printing press. In 2008, as bailouts mounted, the Fed controlled printing press ran at maximum capacity and M1 skyrocketed.
Savings, the backbone of a strong economy, takes the biggest hit from ongoing expansion of the money supply. Watching your purchasing power dissipate removes many incentives of personal savings. Not surprisingly, personal savings rates in this country have been between zero and three percent for the last decade.
Lastly, the Fed’s $30 billion plus of government securities it purchases every year allow the Government to continue its many excessive and destructive policies. This brings us back to the underlying reason the Fed was created. Without it our government would not be able to sustain trillion dollar deficits, billion dollar wars, and their ever increasing role in the lives of this countries citizens.
Thankfully, the Fed’s days as a giant stimulator of malinvestment could be numbered. As of right now H.R. 1207, the bill that would implement a complete audit of the Federal Reserve, has 143 co-sponsors. Although the bill is seeing increased support, it still rests at the helm of the Financial Services Committee. If the bill is to make it through committee and gain the opportunity of vote it will require still further support. The complete bill description, including ways to contact your state representatives and the representatives serving on the Financial Services Committee can be found here.
The importance of H.R. 1207 cannot be understated. It would facilitate public awareness of the egregious acts committed in secrecy by the Fed for almost 100 years now. Trusting a group of private bankers to control the money supply of our entire nation has provided enough devastation. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild, an architect of early centralized banking stated, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”. It is time they start to care who makes the laws. Central bankers operating with no accountability have been given control of the money supply for too long. H.R. 1207 is the first step in requiring accountability on an otherwise incorrigible Federal Reserve. The pressure applied from the bill would compel the Fed to adopt honest and accountable monetary policies. Something this country has seen very little of since 1913.
The Federal Reserve has deceived too many with its shallow explanations of past and present economic catastrophes. The symptoms can only be declared as the causes for so long. Eventually enough of the public is irritated beyond indifference. H.R. 1207 is simply an act on this irritation and would allow the public to see the fault in the system as what it actually is, the system itself.
-Colin
Welcome to The Polemic Perspective, a current event and politically charged blog intended to provide insight and understanding on important issues with reflective, thorough, and cogent analysis. Media critics at heart, we strive to elicit the unmentioned and unconsidered ideas and questions that receive little attention from mainstream politicians and media personalities alike.
We do not claim to be experts and are not ideologues. In fact, the editors of The Polemic Perspective might even disagree. But, our yearning for a strong fundamental knowledge of history, and the applicability of its lessons, always returns us to common questions: Why does the political and media establishment never discuss the reduction of our over-bloated defense budget that constitutes the majority of our national treasure? Why does first strike, military adventurism always seem to trump thoughtful diplomacy? Why does our government promote democracy in some countries and dismantle it in others? Where is the real dialogue questioning the legitimacy of the monetary policies implemented by the Federal Reserve? And why are the dissident voices that discuss the aforementioned dismissed by public discourse?
As students of history, we seek to understand these troubling questions through the careful consideration and application of the historical precedent. We are curious. We have a thirst for knowledge. And we enjoy the opportunity to be challenged. As such, feedback from our readers is welcomed as an integral aspect of enhancing our understanding. Through our passion for research and our willingness to acknowledge polemic perspectives, we attempt to understand where we came from and where we are going. Enjoy the ride!
-Gabe and Colin