Obama Interrogates Terror Suspects on Boats, Not at Guantanamo: Does It Matter?

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

Obama Administration Questioning Suspected Terrorists On Ships Rather Than CIA ‘Black’ Sites

This article discusses the Obama Administration’s emerging trend of detaining and questioning suspected terrorists aboard United States vessels at sea. This approach is the current administration’s response to George W. Bush’s reliance on Guantanamo and other “black sites” as locations for prolonged detention.

Bush’s policy engendered a great deal of controversy on political, legal and moral grounds, as United States citizens dealt with the reality that the federal government was detaining individuals far outside the reach of constitutional due process and typical criminal law procedures.

As part of his campaign platform, Obama insisted that Guantanamo Bay would be closed down, and that his administration was committed to prosecuting suspected terrorists within the currently established boundaries of criminal law and procedure.

While this is clearly a laudable goal from a civil liberties perspective, Obama’s administration has run into difficulty because their civil liberties approach is not the most efficient method of waging the War on Terror and protecting national security interests.

The United States population is generally familiar with the concept of Miranda Rights: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you…” and so on. The reality of the situation is that a suspected terrorist who is “Mirandized” is less likely to talk in order to minimize the government’s criminal case. Inevitably, this lack of information hurts the operators in the national security arena because they must protect national interests with less intelligence than if suspected terrorists were forced or encouraged to give up their information.

The administration’s solution to resolving the tension between these two objectives has been to detain suspects on at-sea vessels, classifying them as enemy combatants under the laws of war and the Laws of Armed Conflict while subjecting them to interrogation for valuable intelligence. Once this phase is completed, these suspected terrorists are re-questioned in accordance with constitutional criminal procedure so that the government can build a case against them for civil prosecution; any information given by the suspect before being read their rights is inadmissible in a court of law.

While the Obama Administration’s position is understandable, their solution is not all that distinguishable from the Bush Administration’s approach. Under both approaches, individuals suspected of terrorist activities are detained in an adversarial location and subjected to various “interview” techniques in the hope of gathering national security information.

It is easy to consider that the Obama approach might be more about satisfying the popular conscience than providing meaningful civil liberty protection.

Does the Obama Administration’s approach do a meaningful job of protecting the civil liberties of individuals suspected of terrorist activity? Is the population concerned with the civil rights of non-American citizens accused of suspected terrorist activity? Is there are more effective or efficient way of resolving the tensions between civil rights and the need for the best intelligence for the national security establishment?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/obama-terrorists-ships_n_4063003.html?ir=World&ref=topbar

Life After the Government Shutdown and “The Story of Solutions”

/ Ana Diaz / Leave a comment

October 1 2013 was an eventful day, to say the least: the government shut down leaving thousands of government workers furloughed, and the American (and global) public were left to wonder about the state of affairs of the richest country in the world. After listening to several NPR radio talk shows addressing the issue, I was not only worried about the government shutdown, but also about the looming deadline to increase the government debt ceiling in the next weeks in order to continue “business as usual” for the U.S. Where would we even start taking care of the multitude of problems that just manifested themselves as a government shutdown? Coincidentally(?), later that evening I stumbled across a video released that same day, the “Story of Solutions”, from the same makers of the “Story of Stuff”.

A short story made shorter, the video critiques the American society’s goal of accumulating more stuff. Our goal should not be to acquire more stuff, but rather to build and have better stuff: better education, better health and a better chance of surviving in this planet. This mentality of acquiring more stuff (fueled by cheap energy derived from hydrocarbons) is what has translated into many of the mess we have created today. These include, but are not limited to: a stagnant economy, polluted air and watersheds, depleted natural resources, poverty and deep social inequalities. Our society’s efforts should focus on issues of health, safety and equity, not on figuring how to make people buy more iPhones, the latest car or buy bigger homes. The next generation of solutions to be proposed in America should deviate from the old model of economic growth. To quote Annie Leonard, the maker of the video, each contributing solution should pursue the following  G.O.A.L.:

1) It GIVES people more power, allowing them to “flex” their citizens muscles,

2) It OPENS peoples’ eyes about to the truth about happiness ( which is found in communities, health, and a sense of purpose),

3) It ACCOUNTS for all the costs by internalizing instead of externalizing them, and

4) It LESSENS the wealth gap between those who consume more than their fair share, and those who have barely enough to fulfill their basic needs.

Let me be clear here, this is by no means unheard of, and for the most part, you might already be familiar with similar discourses. I don’t claim Annie Leonard’s position to be revolutionary or even perfect. Politicizing our society’s problems does not make for easy or quick fixes; In fact, these solutions are bound to be slow and messy, as we take into account the many factors that have been disregarded by techno-fixes we are used to. And although today is reserved to talk about energy and environmental policy, I have taken the liberty to step back, and look a the bigger picture. Energy and environmental policy (or really, any kind of policy) will not yield the results we as a society and species need for survival if we keep operating on the wrong principles, and aiming for the wrong goals. 

A transition to a system where our efforts do not revolve around economic growth and accumulation is bound to be rough, and definitely not pleasant for most of us. Even thinking about it can be overwhelming and paralyzing. However, challenges are also opportunities. Bringing out the optimist inside me (for a change), I would like to say that the government shutdown, and the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations, are prime opportunities to focus our attention on the bigger problems facing us today, and, as Ms. Leonard would say, “game-changing solutions ” to overcome them.  

 

Our Heroes Deserve Better than a “lapse in appropriations”

/ Christopher Moritt / Leave a comment

For this weeks addition of the veteran’s blog I thought it only fitting to discuss the federal government shutdown and the effect it will have on vets around the country. Many Americans who served our country have become dependent on the government for a variety of services. These services range from counseling services to healthcare to education benefits. Fortunately, the Veteran’s Administration has provided us with a two page cheat sheet to guide through what services will be available and what will be impacted by the shutdown, or as they refer to it, “a lapse in appropriations.”

The good news is all medical facilities will be fully operational. Also, not impacted are counseling services, and centers that process home loans and insurance. Nearly everything else that the VA does is either delayed or completely halted. The primary service that will see an impact is payments and processing for education benefits. The official position of the VA is that funding for education is sufficient to last until late October, after that my guess is that it will get suspended. This of course is only relevant in the event of a prolonged shutdown, but given today’s political climate a long shutdown is a possibility and will affect a fairly large number of veterans including myself.

In order to understand how a shutdown impacts those veterans using education benefits it is necessary to briefly explain how the GI Bill works. Several years ago a new GI Bill was put into place referred to as the Post 9/11 GI Bill. This essentially replaced the old education plan that was established decades ago. Essentially, how it works it that any enterprising veteran that wants to go to school can apply for educational benefits so long as you have served at least 36 months of service and have a favorable discharge (this is in order to get 100% of the benefits). Once accepted to a college, university or vocational program the VA issues a check to the school to cover the full cost of the highest public institution in the state. If you are attending graduate school, or a private school, the Yellow Ribbon Program can cover the balance.(This is an agreement between the institution and the government to cover the cost of expensive schools). On top of covering the cost of tuition each veteran receives a housing allowance based on the geographic location of the chosen institution. For example, in the Washington DC area the monthly allowance is around $1800 and in Syracuse area is approximately $1100. For someone like me who lives alone, these amounts generally cover what it cost for me to pay rent, bills and maybe a few other things, but not much on top of basic living. These allowance payments are disbursed at the end of the month to compensate for the previous month. I never understood why it was this way, but have just assumed its to make sure that people are still in school, however, there really isn’t a mechanism for them to know what you are doing unless the school reports failing grades.

In a nutshell that outlines what most veterans are using to pay for their education. The problem with a shutdown is that come October 30th if there is not a resolution many of us will not be able to pay our rent for November. Someone like me, for example, can probably pay my rent because I have money saved, but I’m not sure if I could pay my other monthly expenses. Then there are those veterans who have not had the opportunity to save much money, and will be faced with financial problems. What exactly are they supposed to do? While congress debates, many veterans will be faced with compiling late fees for bills owed. To be fair, some creditors may be sympathetic, but some will not be. When the government finally decides to get everything together some folks could already be on the road to serious financial problems that can be difficult to recover from. I am not going to pretend to have a good solution, in fact I’m not even sure there is one, just the hope that those responsible for leading this country will find a way to take care of those who have sacrificed for it. For more information, you can check out the VA website. www.va.gov

Mandatory Minimum Punishments: Do they have a legitimate purpose?

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

Many federal and state crimes carry a “mandatory minimum” term of imprisonment for any defendant convicted of that crime. In practice, this means that if you are convicted of an offense that carries such a punishment, regardless of any mitigating circumstances in the case, the judge is bound by law to sentence you to the specified mandatory minimum punishment. As I mentioned in my post last week, drug law is one area where mandatory minimums are extremely popular.

Attorney General Eric Holder recently released his intention to reform drug law and do away with many of the mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes. Such sentences have ruined countless lives and overcrowded prisons beyond capacity. Jacob Sullum, contributor for Forbes, reported some of these horror stories in his September 18th article. For example, consider, “a 10-year sentence received by an 18-year-old first-time offender caught with less than two ounces of cocaine, a 22-year sentence received by an 24-year-old woman who sold 13.9 grams of crack to a police informant, and a 25-year sentence received by a 46-year-old father of three who sold some of his painkillers to someone he thought was his friend.”[1] While these are only a few examples of the hundreds and thousands of individuals who received similar sentences, they serve as a realistic illustration of the practical application of mandatory minimums for drug crimes. Are these punishments justified? If so, do they enhance safety or serve some other important interest of our society?

It is hard to see what rational basis is served by incarcerating those who, as above, possessed a miniscule amount of drugs. Are these the dangerous criminals in society who deserve to go to jail for 10, 22, and 25 years? One would venture to guess that most people would see the individuals who import the drugs into the U.S. as the ones who deserve these harsh and lengthy prison sentences.

Additionally, we should also think about the nature of drug crimes, particularly possession charges. It is a fairly established fact that drug addiction can destroy someone’s life; if someone has a serious drug addiction, their actions are, many times, the result of their addiction. We know that drug addiction, much like alcoholism, becomes a life long battle for addicts. Do we throw alcoholics in jail for drinking too much? In the drug context, we send those who are caught with drugs on their person to prison for long periods of time in an effort to “rehabilitate” them.

The flip side of the coin of drug arrests, especially for possession, is that many low-level peddlers who receive these steep sentences are selling drugs to earn money. While this is illegal, are their actions as morally culpable as someone who commits a murder?

The over-arching problem here is that mandatory minimum sentences take away a sentencing judge’s ability to tailor the sentence to the circumstances. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, passed in 1986 as part of the Sentencing Reform Act, judges for many crimes are given an advisory range of imprisonment to consider when sentencing a defendant. There are factors the judge must take into account when coming to his conclusion, thus allowing him the flexibility in non-mandatory minimum cases to set an appropriate term of punishment or imprisonment based on the circumstances. However, before United States v. Booker was decided in 2005, these guidelines were mandatory. 545 U.S. 220 (2005). After Booker, the guidelines were deemed only advisory by the Court. Giving a sentencing judge the ability to appropriately tailor a sentence to the circumstances seems to be a cornerstone of our legal system. Our system aims to punish, but only enough to fulfill our goals of punishment (deterrence, incapacitation, etc.).

However, the Sentencing Guidelines were originally instituted to strip judges of this power to tailor an appropriate sentence. The legislature became concerned with the variance in sentencing for the same crime amongst judges. But, have we gone too far in alleviating the judges of this ability? Should judges have discretion to impose a fair sentence in every case, or only some?

Hopefully Eric Holder’s call for change in mandatory minimums for certain drug crimes will spark a wave of change in this area of sentencing law.

 

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/09/19/rand-paul-is-right-about-the-injustice-of-mandatory-drug-minimums/

 

Senate Hearing on Federal Disability Insurance Program

/ Angel Baker / Leave a comment

There is a hearing today on the Federal Disability Insurance Program, which could become the first government benefits program to run out of money. CBS’s 60 Minutes devoted its first segment last night to the upcoming hearing.  The segment features Administrative Law Judges and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. The Administrative Law Judges stated that attorneys represent many more people now than in the past, and implied this is part of the reason that those people are able to “scam” the system. However, what she failed to mention was that for an unrepresented person, it would be extremely difficult to understand what was needed to show disability. These lawyers are helping people with disabilities, which need this Program to survive, receive benefits that are provided to help them under this Program. Noticeably, absent are people who would have benefited under this program.

 
Furthermore, Senator Coburn stated, “If there’s any job in the economy you can perform, you are not eligible for disability.” However, the statute actually states that disability is the “inability to engage in any substantial activity.” There are many situations (especially for those 50 or older) in which the law itself indicates that they are “disabled” even though they can perform certain jobs. A person 50 years old often can perform work of certain types and still be found “disabled,” because it takes into account many factors, including age, education, and work experience. Furthermore, CBS seemed particularly to sneer at a diagnosis of fibromyalgia because there are not any tests. What they fail to say is that there are criteria for diagnosing it. Specifically, there are 18 trigger points, that when pressed can cause excruciating pain in someone with fibromyalgia. To be diagnosed, you must have that pain in 11 of the 18 spots over a 3 month period, and you have to be diagnosed by an acceptable medical source (an M.D., Psy. D., Ph. D., or a D.O.). Additionally, you must prove that you are no longer capable of doing the work that you used to do because of the fibromyalgia.
There is clearly a problem, not that there is fraud in the system, but that there may not be enough money to continue the system. How should we cover the deficiency?

 

Video of the (three plus hour) hearing, provocatively titled: “Social Security Disability Benefits: Did a Group of Judges, Doctors, and Lawyers Abuse Programs for the Country’s Most Vulnerable?”,can be found here.

For an article criticizing the 60 Minutes segment, see the Los Angeles Times article entitled, “‘60 Minutes’ Shameful Attack on the Disabled.”

For more on the supposed “disability boom,” here is a link to a SLACE Archive post about a This American Life episode titled “Trends with Benefits” and a preview of the episode  from the Planet Money podcast.