Bright Hall

The Future of Student News

BH Staff — 2009-04-29T10:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Media

Bright Hall has evolved, has a new home and a new name. We are now part of Politics Daily, "a political news magazine for the general reader updated every day, throughout the day...offering a thoughtful take on events." We're honored to be a part of this adventurous and forward-thinking site launch.

Henceforth, we will be know as The Cram, but our purpose remains consistent:

"The Cram is opinion and analysis from accomplished student writers at higher learning institutions across America, where the future of politics is taking shape every day over collegial debate and caffeinated study. Join us as we break down the news cycle with an eye on campus issues and enough energy to conquer any syllabus."

You will find your favorite writers and new faces on The Cram, as well as a beat on the topics that interest you most. This week we've covered the continued controversy over Notre Dame's selection of President Obama as this year's commencement speaker, how the New York State budget is aversely effecting the state's student population, the continued towering tuition increases at our nation's universities, an exclusive speech made by the Bush Administration official who deemed waterboarding legal, and, right now, we're tweeting live from Obama's "100th Day" town hall in St. Louis.

We hope you'll continue to follow us in our new form. We promise to deliver the same brand of insightful campus coverage that you came back for.

The Editors

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-26T17:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Boston University, Media

Matt Negin is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.

But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.

That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.

Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)

But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?

Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).

For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.

Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.

One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.

These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'Waterboarding Memo' Author Speaks to College Republicans

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-26T00:36:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, USC

Joshua Sharp is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

Former Bush Administration official John Yoo, author of several Justice Department memos determining waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be legal, addressed the California College Republicans as the keynote speaker at their statewide convention in San Francisco this weekend.

Author's note: In addition to political commentary, I'm a member of the USC College Republicans. Views posted here are my own.

Two dozen protesters gathered outside the Hyatt Fisherman's Wharf hotel where the convention was being held, holding signs calling Yoo a war criminal as they chanted, "Jail John Yoo!"

Yoo was actually remarkably soft-spoken compared to the protesters outside. He described his background and his support of key Bush Administration policies, saying, "Sometimes in war, you have to take pre-emptive action to stop someone from trying to harm our country." He pointed out that al-Qaeda had deliberately targeted civilians on Sept. 11, not combatants or military troops.

Putting perspective on enhanced interrogation techniques, Yoo said the United States interrogates detainees "not because we're trying to get a confession [for use in the courts], we're trying to get information to prevent the next attack."

Yoo closed with a question: "Were those policies successful?" It's been almost eight years since 9/11, he said, and our nation has not seen another domestic terrorist attack "because of the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies."

Yoo also encouraged young conservatives to "have the courage of your convictions" and engage in free speech and open debate with "the people who would shout you down."

Earlier in the day, hundreds of College Republicans took to the streets of San Francisco for an anti-bailout "Tea Party" protest, holding signs with slogans like, "You keep your Hope, I'll keep my Change."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Why I Can't Reduce My Carbon Footprint

Tony Romm — 2009-04-25T17:40:00+00:00

Filed under: Environment, American University

Tony Romm is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

It would not be Earth Day weekend without the requisite guilt: Pesky environmentalists proselytizing their cause ad nauseum, hoping to influence at least one group of complacent bystanders to evaluate their carbon footprint. Though annoying, their cause has ample merit: A recent study by the National Climate Data Center reveals that the period between January and March 2009 was the eighth hottest on record. The next three months, for that reason, are certain to pan out no differently.

So on the heels of an excessively warm Earth Day, from the couch in my excessively warm apartment in Washington D.C., I decide to question my own impact on the environment. To do so, I locate an informal quiz at EarthDay.net, one of the "holiday's" leading advocacy groups. The verdict: I am a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste of Earth space, living a lifestyle that, if emulated by billions, would destroy the Earth more than four times over:

I'm shocked; until now, I have no idea I'm truly wrecking the Earth, and I thus feel guilty. I subsequently consult the Web site's quiz-specific conservation guide, hoping to gain some insight into which specific behaviors contribute to my planet's downfall. What I find, however, verges on asinine.

The top tip EarthDay.net offers me is predictable: I should replace my most common household appliances with machines or devices that are more energy efficient. Although I have not the resources to make any such purchases right now, I estimate their cost using BestBuy.com anyway. My findings are hardly surprising. To replace the old refrigerator, washer, dryer, air conditioner and television in my apartment with the cheapest (and smallest) ENERGY STAR-compliant appliances on the market, it would cost me approximately $1,900, sans delivery and tax. This hefty sum excludes a host of other inefficient appliances that I normally use -- including my laptop and stove, for instance -- which would presumably cost me even more to replace.

(Click to read more about the quiz and what it means.)
The Web site also suggests I reduce my daily animal product intake by half, meat and poultry especially. I find this section considerably troubling, given that I eat poultry (never meat), at most twice per week. But I note it anyway: Abstaining from chicken and turkey saves me a few dollars -- until I decide to purchase an equivalent, pre-packaged good (which the Web site also discourages). On balance, I find I've actually spent more money than I would have normally budgeted for food, probably in a halfhearted attempt to purchase only those items packaged using recyclable materials. I also discover that I've produced about two times as much waste as I would have if I just ate the damn chicken sandwich I wanted in the first place.

Discouraged, I return to my checklist to note one final peculiarity -- my "energy land" consumption is massive. I start playing with the quiz's questions in a feeble attempt to lower this rating, and I discover only one: Turning off all power to my apartment, which somehow only reduces my overall Ecological Footprint by .2 global acres. I note similar changes to this measurement when I consent to living in a small house without any running water, or otherwise deprive myself of basic human amenities (that my apartment, much less the District, would not let me shut off even if I asked). I realize, at this point, that there's little net benefit to such massive inconvenience -- maybe $120 saved each month so that I can write this article in the dark without Internet -- so I quit the quiz and begin reflecting.

And it is at that point I realize I'm not alone in my frustration. It is somewhat indisputable that addressing global warming is a unparalleled "moral imperative," as the Goreacle told lawmakers at a committee hearing last week. The perennial images of melting ice caps and potent storms are haptic reminders of humankind's manifest wrath on the lonely planet that they greedily inhabit. To be sure, the green movement has its doubters, some of whom have received more attention than is naturally warranted. But Americans on balance seem to be slowly admitting their role in the Earth's progressive climate change, even if they are simultaneously taking credit for breakthroughs that are wholly fictional.

Consequently, it is no longer guilt or doubt preventing scores of Americans from altering their lifestyles in the name of a global pursuit. Rather, it's the economy: Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people, suggests rationalism, an implicit understanding of losses and gains, and amid America's economic meltdown, that calculation has itself become a contradiction. How does a family without a steady income outfit their empty kitchen with a new set of energy-efficient appliances? How can an underpaid D.C.-based, entry-level journalist afford an energy efficient car, much less any personal form of transportation? And why should either feel guilty for those inabilities?

Hypotheticals aside, this has been the ubiquitous struggle of the modern environmentalist movement: how to balance a legitimate, rational concern for the environment with the equally legitimate, equally rational economic constraints that tug constantly at families' wallets. The green thumbs among us have not an answer to this quandary, and it is evident in a number of their public information campaigns -- this quiz included. Indeed, I reckon I am not the only college student this weekend to question the utility of Earth Day-induced guilt; it is 88 degrees Fahrenheit here, which is hot even by the District's standards. I also know I'm hardly the only soul too poor to afford to save the planet. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I can't -- at least, by the real environmentalists' rigid standards.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Supreme Court Explores High School Searches, Personal Drama

Sam Guzik — 2009-04-24T10:06:00+00:00

Filed under: National News, Washington University, News

Sam Guzik is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

The Supreme Court is one of the United States's most venerable institutions, packed with nine of the nation's best legal minds, so it makes sense that they might be a little too busy to keep up with popular culture. Comments during the oral arguments in a case earlier this week, though, take out of touch to a new level.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding, heard by the court on Tuesday, asks the justices to weigh in on the constitutionality of strip searching students in schools when administrators have received a tip about hidden contraband but no location-specific information. While sorting through the complex fourth amendment issues, Justices found themselves transported back to their own time in school.

Take Justice Breyer, who wondered how the strip search was any different than what he had to endure while being forced to change for gym class and, less relevantly, while being teased by fellow students.

"In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear," said Breyer while trying to point out that it might not be unusual for children to hide things from teachers in their underwear. As the court broke out into laughter, Breyer quickly added, "Or not my underwear. Whatever. Whatever."
Putting aside the troublesome assumption that forcing students to change for gym is analogous with forcing a 13-year-old girl to expose her breasts and pelvic region to school administrators, Justice Breyer's anecdote should be enough to start shaking your head at the Court.

Justice Scalia was surprised to learn that students sometimes sniff markers to get high when he asked why the school was attempting to confiscate them from students. "They sniff them?" Scalia said. "That's what kids do, your honor, unfortunately," said Matthew Wright, the representative for the petitioners. "Really?" Scalia responded.

The Court is expected to find against Savana Redding, now 19 (pictured at right), when it rules on the case in June based on the precedent of several other cases that establish a lower standard for administration searches of schools.

During the oral arguments, only Justice Ginsberg--coincidentally the only woman on the court--seemed shocked by the situation, observing the differences between Justice Breyer's experience in the men's locker room and Redding's search.

"It wasn't just that they were stripped to their underwear! They were asked to shake their bra out, to stretch the top of their pants and shake that out!" she said.

According to USA Today, The National Association of Social Workers - joined by the National Education Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children - sides with Redding in a court filing. "Social science research demonstrates that strip searches can traumatize children and adolescents and result in serious emotional damage," they say, citing studies in educational and legal journals.

After the strip search, Savana never returned to Safford Middle School. She transferred to other schools but never obtained her high school degree. She is currently taking classes at a community college and working to prepare for her GED.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

So What If Texas DID Secede From The Union?

Tony Romm — 2009-04-23T19:26:00+00:00

Tony Romm is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

The blogosphere is still rumbling this week after a suggestion by Texas Governor Rick Perry that the (now literally) Lone Star state secede from the embattled union. It does not help, of course, that a poll released on Thursday by Research2000 merely confirms the unfortunate truth that Perry's comments may have resonated among some Texans: In the survey, nearly 35 percent of respondents, mostly Republicans, indicated they felt Texas would be better off as an "independent nation."

It would be naive to take these findings seriously; gauging public opinion on any topic is difficult and daunting, especially when the questions themselves are indulgent and practically invite silliness. It is likely that many of the survey's respondents answered only out of jest, submitting to Perry's gaffe without the slightest contemplation of what secession would actually mean for their state, personal or geographic.

But that hasn't stopped a plethora of pundits from jokingly hypothesizing on their behalf. Earlier this week, Daily Kos noted a few drawbacks to Texan secession: the loss of its coveted military bases, exorbitant NASA funding and most of its dirty industry. Preceding that prediction was Nate Silver, who reminded politicos at FiveThirtyEight that an America without Texas would have catapulted the Democrats to a filibuster-proof supermajority in Congress -- even without Al Franken's help -- and ensured that not another Bush family member could have won the White House in 2004.

Indeed, we can attribute to Texas' departure a number of interesting benefits (that only those wary voters who stuck out the economy's apoplexy could reap). For example...

(CLICK TO READ MORE...)

In the realm of higher education, an America without Texas would save the federal government more than $1 billion in Pell Grants (.xls), the program provided annually to college students who demonstrate significant financial need. In the 2006-2007 academic year, the Department of Education awarded Texas enough Pell Grant assistance to cover more than 440,000 college students -- money that would obviously disappear if the state left the union. To give this figure more perspective, recall that the most recent federal stimulus included a provision to increase Pell Grant funding by more than $13 billion dollars, almost $300 per student. When you subtract Texas from that equation and add the money saved by its absence, the United States could opt to cover more students or increase eligible students' current awards (even if only by a tiny amount).

A more substantial benefit from Texas' exit, however, is environmental in nature. According to The New York Times' assessment of state environmental quality, Texas emitted 224.76 million metric tons of CO2 last year -- ranking it first in total pollution. Presumably, this is because Texas also boasts the second largest population in the United States, weighing in at well over 22 million residents. Unfortunately, population totals matter little when state or federal agencies must offset carbon output. It currently costs the country anywhere between $1-30 per metric ton to address troublesome emissions, which would translate in Texas' case to anywhere between $224.76 million and $6.7 billion in CO2 offset fees. Of course, the Lone Star state's withdrawal would not exactly address the root environmental problem here; Texas would still emit pollutants at an alarming rate. However, secession would absolve the United States of its responsibility to pay for or fix it -- good news to the few voters who still weep openly about deficit spending.

And, finally, for those in the nation's capitol still bitter at Sen. John Cornyn's, R-Texas, vote against D.C. voting rights, Texas's exit would permit the District -- should it ever receive statehood -- a spot on the flag. Unlikely, but nonetheless important to the same cadre of cynical voters who first brought you Hippos for Hypocrites.

Indeed, many of these "benefits" are moot; the Lone Star state's exit would severely dent U.S. exports, among other areas of the economy, and test President Obama's foreign policy credentials. Then again, perhaps Obama too stands to gain from Texas' secession -- in some perverted sense, it would finally offer the ersatz Lincoln-ite the chance to walk in his idol's footsteps in more than just name.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Former Space Man Talks Politics, Accomplishments

Joshua Chaney — 2009-04-23T17:28:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Culture, The Economy, Muskingum College

Perhaps one of the most distinguished and certainly one of the most recognizable people in American history spoke humbly of his life accomplishments and reviewed Obama's first 100 days earlier this month.

On April 9, 2009 - 50 years ago this month - John Glenn was named a member of the Mercury 7, the United States' first astronauts. Glenn grew up in the village of New Concord - a small, college town in southeastern Ohio. He was a member of the village band and eventually a student at Muskingum College.

Since those days, his name has been one that is familiar to most anyone. He was a fighter pilot, a test pilot, one of America's first astronauts, the first man to orbit earth in space, an Ohio senator, a presidential candidate and later the oldest man to fly in space.

"It's hard for me to believe it's been that long," he said. "Part of that is because it seems to vivid to me."

One thing made clear by speaking with Glenn is his keen interest in politics and history. In fact, Glenn, a former Ohio Senator from 1974 to 1999, ran for president in 1984 but was unsuccessful. A close friend of the Kennedy family, Glenn was with Robert Kennedy when President John Kennedy was assassinated in Texas.

Glenn campaigned for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 and President Barack Obama in 2008. Glenn has said Obama is "doing an exceptional job" dealing with America's economic crisis.

"I can't speak with any certainty about the economy, because nobody knows what's going to happen, and I think we had to do something because this was the biggest drift down since the Great Depression."
Glenn's father was a plumber without work during those days. Eventually, Glenn explained, he found work through Roosevelt's Work Projects Administration program.

"There were things like that that really primed the pump and helped things and it took awhile," he said. "We didn't recover for many years after that"

Pundits have already started rating and reviewing Obama's first 100 days in office with mixed reviews.

"I think he had to do something and I certainly hope this works," Glenn said. "What he's doing to try and prime the pump now is running up an enormous national debt that we're going to have to deal with, but that's something I think he had to do. I don't think we could let this thing go the way it was. Even in just the last few weeks here I've noticed in the papers and magazines a lot of talk now about that this is a recovery that is starting and things like that and I certainly hope it's true."

Glenn's service was marked most notably for his work in foreign policy. While in office, Glenn was the chief author of the 1978 Nonproliferation Act and served as the chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1987 until 1995, and sat on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees.

"I think his first foray into foreign policy in Europe and Turkey and those areas has been a big success from everything I can read," Glenn said.

Obama's effort to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons in the world "strikes a very responsive cord with me because that was one of the areas I worked very hard on all the time I was in the Senate, nuclear nonproliferation."

Glenn serves on Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, which he explained has met for more than a year, toured various nuclear development locations around the country, and is to decide whether or not the current military weaponry arsenal is adequate or can be adjusted.

Sen. Glenn is an adjunct professor of political science at the Ohio State University, where he helped establish the John Glenn School of Public Affairs, a wing he started in 1998 to encourage public service.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Magazine Capitalizes on Obama's Pecs

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-22T16:30:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Media, Notre Dame

The torture debate is getting exhausting, and it's only just begun. Did the United States torture? Was it wrong? Should people be prosecuted? Will Dick Cheney ever stop appearing on Fox News and just enjoy his retirement already?

Let's instead turn to a much lighter story. Washingtonian Magazine, which typically has such attention-grabbing cover stories as "Top 100 Dentists in the Washington Area" or "Top 30 Places to Visit on the Weekend," has put out a May cover that is getting way more attention than their April edition, "Inside 10 Great Homes."

The topic of this month's cover issue is "26 Reasons to Love Living Here." Reason No. 2 is: "Our new neighbor is hot."

To prove the point, the magazine put a picture of President Obama, clad only in a bathing suit and sunglasses, on the cover.

I know the print media industry is suffering right now, but really, Washingtonian Magazine? I didn't realize your editorial board consisted of the women from Desperate Housewives.
The best part of this story is that the magazine isn't even embarrassed that they have turned themselves into a checkout line gossip rag. At the top of their Web site, the magazine asks readers to weigh in with their thoughts on the May cover.

They call it "the cover heard 'round the world." I get the historical reference, but I believe the cover's been seen, not heard. Okay, now I'm just giving Washingtonian Magazine a hard time. Back to the task at hand.

The magazine says "Some of you love it; some of you hate it; some have questioned whether or not it's an 'appropriate' cover; and some just want to talk about the state of Obama's pecs."

The comments posted on the Web sites are mixed, but as one commenter posts, regardless of what one thinks about the photo, it works. People who have never heard of Washingtonian before are checking out the site.

The photo in question, CNN reported, was taken while Obama was in Hawaii on his Christmas vacation.

Garrett Graff, the editor-at-large for the magazine, told CNN that the picture was appropriate.

"The Obamas, through their involvement in Washington, are helping to showcase just how exciting it is in Washington right now," he told CNN. "We use the world 'hot' tongue in cheek with the photo."

He added: "He is a buff president that the paparazzi enjoy taking pictures of." Graff seems like a pretty interesting guy, and he's had a lot of good ideas in the past (he was founding editor of Fishbowl D.C.). I'll chalk this up to an act of desperation on the part of Washingtonian Magazine.

If The Economist starts running half-nude pictures of Barack Obama on its covers, then it's time for print magazines to pack it up and go home.

Photo: Washingtonian.com

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Debate over Interrogation Tactics Continues

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-21T08:43:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, News, Notre Dame

President Obama is making a mistake by not pursuing any prosecutions for those responsible for the harsh interrogation techniques that were used during the Bush administration.

Last week, I posted a blog piece about the legal memos released by the Justice Department that detailed the interrogation techniques used by the United States on people suspected of involvement in terrorist acts or planning. Obama reportedly agonized over the release of the memos, weighing whether their release was necessary for transparency of government or whether releasing the memos would compromise the security of the United States.

When he did release them, he announced that those who had carried out the torture, believing their actions were lawful, would not be subject to prosecution.

George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC's "This Week," asked White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Sunday whether the president also ruled out prosecution for the officials who devised the torture polices.

Emanuel responded: "He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided."

Stephanopoulos followed up with the same question.

"Yeah, but those who devised the policy, he believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either," Emanuel said.

Obama visited the Central Intelligence Agency Monday to thank agents for their service and to offer reassurance about the after effects of the release of the memos.

"Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes," Obama said. "That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA."

If the policy in place before was a mistake, if it was wrong, if it was torture, how can we just "move forward" without anyone facing retribution for their actions, or for what they allowed to happen?

If there's no penalty for breaking the U.S. law against torture, the law will be hard to enforce in the future. News sources have reported that two captured al Qaeda operatives were subjected to waterboarding 266 times. If waterboarding is torture, then the law has been broken, and someone, or multiple people, must face the consequences.

A day after Emanuel's interview, The New York Times reported that White House aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush-era lawyers who legally justified using the harsh interrogation techniques.

The change to U.S. interrogation policy is a good step forward, but if Obama allows those who developed the interrogation policy used under the Bush administration to go unpunished, then the United States' past mistakes will not be fully corrected, and our moral standing in the world will be questionable.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

No Handshakes Allowed, Mr. President!

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-21T02:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, International News, Boston University

The president of the United States may be the most powerful person in the world, but there are still things he's not allowed to do -- like trade stocks while knowing insider information, or throw Naked Thursday dinner parties at the White House.

Now, add to those taboos shaking hands with leaders of certain countries.

It was only recently at the G-20 summit that Barack Obama was "bending his tall frame" to the king of Saudi Arabia. But on Friday, Obama shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at a summit in Trinidad and Tobago.

As the fair and balanced network Fox News objectively told us in a headline, "Handshake With Obama Belies Chavez's Contempt for America."

And Dick Cheney, who like Santa Claus apparently has a list of things that are naughty and nice, told that same award-wanting news network that the handshake "was not helpful."

The Angler added, "I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests."

So there you have it, Obama. Be very careful. Next time a foreign leader who says bad things about the United States reaches out his hand to extend diplomatic politeness, you know what to do.

The snub.

There are several ways to effectively perform a snub. The first, and most obvious, is to ignore the outstretched hand of the anti-American figurehead. You stand there, and you say something nice, like, "Nice to see you." If it gets awkward, take a drink of whatever's in the glass you should always be carrying for situations like this.

But this is the Venezuelan president, the man who Fox News kindly reminds us called the United States four years ago the most "murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." A simple snub won't do; you need finesse. Take one out of the junior-high playbook and reach out to shake Big Hugo's hand, then spike it up in the air and comb it past the back of your head, exclaiming, "Psyche!"

Another good phrase to yell is, "Not!!"

If he tries it again, use the King Cobra: Stare him down until his hand starts twitching, then jut your head and torso forward abruptly and pull it back. Give out a, "What?!"

That'll teach Chavez not to call capitalism "the devil."

Update: Jimmy Fallon and I evidently share a sense of humor (view the April 20 monologue).

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Miss California & The Gay Rights Thought Police

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-20T20:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, USC, News

OMG! Miss California is a social conservative!

Last night, the Miss USA pageant was held -- unbeknownst to me, since all I know about pageants is what I've seen in Little Miss Sunshine. Near the end of the pageant, celebrity judge Perez Hilton was tasked with asking one question of then-frontrunner Miss California Carrie Prejean. He decided to lob a question about one of the most politically controversial issues of our time; Prejean's response may have cost her the title:

Hilton: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?"

Prejean: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."

Now, most politicians don't like answering that divisive question in front of a split audience, and typically squirm while doing so. For Prejean to have the courage to (even somewhat inarticulately) frame the issue as a state-by-state choice while acknowledging her honest personal beliefs, I think, shows a lot of strength and reflects well on her character.

But the beauty pageant judges were aghast at Prejeans' lack of political correctness, and retribution was swift.

"I think it did lose her the crown," Hilton said today on MSNBC. On a webcast posted late Sunday night, he ranted against Prejean, saying, "She lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage; she lost because she's a dumb b****."

More from Hilton: "... [T]hat is not the kind of woman I want to be Miss USA. There's a difference between running for president and being a beauty queen.

"A president is affiliated with a political party, that political party has ideologies, they are in favor with or against. A beauty queen, a beauty pageant queen, Miss USA, should represent all Americans. And with her answer, she instantly was divisive and alienated millions of gays and lesbians, their family, their friends, and supporters."

I have a much simpler answer: Why not avoid the hot-button issue during a beauty pageant in the first place? By asking that provocative question, Hilton was giving Miss California an ultimatum: answer correctly, or risk the crown.

Hilton claims no political bias, saying, "I was not upset or frustrated with her disagreeing with me about gay marriage. I was just upset and frustrated with how she answered the question."

Um, that's essentially the same thing.

Regardless of one's personal views on the issue, and whether we agree or disagree with Prejean's opinion, it's extremely troubling to see someone answer a question honestly -- articulating a viewpoint consistent with roughly half of the voters in her home state -- only to be punished by those who disagree.

It is hypocritical to fight for freedom of speech and freedom of expression if one has no tolerance for those with opposing views, and I am deeply concerned by the gay rights movement's overall decision post-Prop 8 to begin blacklisting political opponents out of anger and vengefulness.

Let's cut out the litmus test, and leave politics in the political arena.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Susan Boyle Becomes Internet Sensation

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-20T15:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Notre Dame

It is improbable that a homely, 47-year-old woman from a small village in Scotland could captivate the world, but somehow that is exactly what has happened this week.

Last Wednesday, a friend sent me a link to a YouTube video showing Susan Boyle, a woman of admittedly plain looks, with short, curly gray hair, a plump figure and bushy eyebrows. Boyle appeared on Britain's Got Talent, a television show similar to American Idol, where the perpetually tan Simon Cowell and another man and woman judge as regular Brits showcase their performance skills.

The video starts with an interview with Susan Boyle, who says she lives alone with her cat Pebbles, and has never been married, or even kissed. When she walks out on stage, you can hear the laughter from the audience, and see the doubt in the faces of the judges. This woman, everyone thought, would just be another dud, someone who thought she sounded good in the shower, but really struggled to carry a tune.

But everyone gets their chance on the show, even though many in the audience were rolling their eyes. The music for "I Dreamed a Dream" from the musical Les Miserables began, and the audience went from mockery to amazement as they heard Susan Boyle start singing the very difficult song beautifully. The shock registered on the judges' faces, and the audience stood up to cheer, while Susan Boyle calmly continued singing the song she had come to sing.

The YouTube video has, by Monday afternoon, received more than 33 million views. Boyle is one of the top trending topics on Twitter and has been for days. She has over a million fans on Facebook.

And I, for one, cannot stop thinking about her.

In a culture obsessed with youth and beauty, Susan Boyle is an outsider. Someone I sent the video to could not believe it was really Boyle singing. He asked me if Britain's Got Talent had done the reverse of China in the Olympics, playing a beautiful voice with a less than beautiful image.

Other people I know, as they were watching the video, joked that they wished they were just listening to the audio. The video is so stunning, and I believe has been viewed so many times, purely because of the great dichotomy between what we are hearing and what we are seeing.

Susan Boyle, according to an article in The Times of London, is a volunteer caring for elderly members of her local church and has spent much of her adult life caring for her mother. It wasn't until after her mother died that she finally decided to make a big try for a music career, and she did it as a tribute to her mother, who always told her she was a great singer.

Is the Susan Boyle video mesmerizing because we do not expect such a heavenly voice from someone who looks nothing like an angel? Or is it because Boyle reminds us that we too can rise up, even as others snicker at us and doubt our capabilities?

Or has the impossible truly happened?

Now that the 2008 election is over and the problems we knew existed before Nov. 4 loom even larger, in an economy whose bottom we may not yet have reached, with North Korea firing rockets and Iran imprisoning U.S. journalists, now that problems must actually be addressed, not just discussed in soaring rhetoric, have Americans found someone who embodies hope like Barack Obama did when he was a candidate?

Susan Boyle, if you really want to make it big, leave your little Scottish village and come to America, because here, hope sells.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

U.S. Cabinet to Eliminate Dozens of Government Programs

Adam Kirchner — 2009-04-19T13:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Money, Towson University

President Barack Obama announced an initiative to reduce "wasteful" government spending in his weekly address on Saturday.

"Billions are squandered on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a lobbyist or interest group," Obama said.

An agenda topic at Monday's first full Cabinet meeting will be budget cut proposals from each federal department and agency.

In his Saturday address, Obama named two specific budget cuts recently made: firstly, the Department of Homeland Security is no longer spending $3 million on logo updates. The DHS was created less than 7 years ago and the reason that the logo needed a $3 million update so soon remains to be seen.

The second budget cut is the saving of an estimated "hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending and cost overruns" in the Department of Defense. According to the DoD's FY 2008 Agency Financial Report, the Department's available resources were $1.1 trillion, which primarily consisted of $736.4 billion in appropriations. The net cost of operations was $676 billion. A possible budget cut is no longer appropriating $736.4 billion to tally $1.1 trillion in resources when net operating costs are only $676 billion.

Obama pledged to announce "the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective. In this effort, there will be no sacred cows, and no pet projects."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Espionage: Iran's New Word for, 'We Got Nothing'

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-19T08:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, International News, Boston University, Media

It's difficult to take a country's court system seriously when it convicts defendants in secret trials. It also doesn't help when the president of that country is a Holocaust denier and suspected terrorist. And it really doesn't look professional to accuse the defendant -- a journalist -- of "espionage" without providing a single piece of real evidence.

But such is the perplexing case of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American reporter who was convicted of spying by Iran's shady court this week. The prosecutors accused the 31-year-old journalist of passing along secret information to U.S. intelligence agencies.

Spying is a pretty serious career choice, not to mention time-consuming. For Saberi to successfully spy on the Iranian government, she would have to maintain a cover, make contacts and stay under the radar for most of the six years that she's lived in the country (at least, according to the Spy Museum tour I took in D.C.).

So if suspected spy Saberi was supposed to lay low, why was she filing dozens of stories each month for news organizations like the BBC, NPR and Fox? In June 2007, she was on the front line in Tehran when Iranians burned down gas stations in opposition to fuel rationing. And she was on the scene when the Islamic country banned women from soccer games the year before, too.

Either Roxana Saberi is a terrible spy, or she's not a spy at all.

That might explain why the Iranian government first arrested her on the charge of buying a bottle of wine. They continued to hold her by claiming that she wasn't a real journalist like she claimed because she didn't have press credentials. Well, that's true -- because Iran's government had revoked her press pass in 2006.

But maybe the Iranian government does have a case after all. As revealed by a simple Google search that I can only imagine is the sole tool Iran's prosecutors used, Saberi told the U.S. government two years ago detailed information about Iranian weapons. Prepare for damning evidence:

Specifically, she mentioned "missiles that are hard to track with radar, super-fast torpedoes recently tested in war games, and other domestically produced weapons" in addition to its "tanks, armoried personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane."

But when I say that Saberi told the U.S. government about those weapons, I mean that she told anyone who was listening to NPR -- or even Iran, which was boasting its weapons as part of its annual Army Day Parade when she reported that story. So scratch that line of argument.

So if it's nearly impossible to make the case that Saberi is a spy, why did Iran charge her with "espionage?" Aren't there other serious crimes to commit against the Iranian government, like celebrating Passover, or acknowledging the Holocaust, or buying a bottle of wine? According to Saberi's father, the charges were so ludicrous that she had to be "tricked" into confessing.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that she's "deeply disappointed" in the ruling. I'm going to have to agree -- disappointed in the lack of creativity on Iran's part.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Tea Parties: Conservatives' New Media Launch?

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-19T00:20:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, USC, Media

The "tax day tea parties" this week marked arguably the most visible sign of a conservative uprising since before Bush 43's presidency, with over 300,000 estimated attendees across nearly 350 cities nationwide.

But the larger impact embodied by these protests is a bit more subtle: It shows that conservatives have discovered new media in a very powerful way.

Political campaigns of all ideological viewpoints have long gathered e-mail lists of supporters and built professionally-designed websites to serve as their online presence. But only recently has the Internet evolved to serve as a global town hall, with activists uploading pictures and videos from events held around the world, and networking tool, with registered organizers pooling resources and sharing plans.

In the last election season, both Barack Obama and John McCain created social networking sites and event registration tools in addition to Facebook pages and a YouTube channel. The Obama campaign was more successful with these tools for a variety of reasons (younger base of supporters, ridiculous talent on staff), but the online media landscape is changing so rapidly that conservatives have a real chance at surpassing the most impressive techniques of the '08 cycle.

Beyond the ideological debate behind Wednesday's protests, the fact remains that hundreds of events, sometimes thousands of miles apart, were linked together by the power of social media, as organizers coordinated events online and exchanged pictures (video, stories, etc.) afterward.

More on new media after the jump...
Politico's Jonathan Martin co-moderated a panel Wednesday -- the same day as the tea parties -- with USC Unruh Institute of Politics director Dan Schnur on "Political Organizing in the Internet Age." I served as a panelist alongside some more experienced campaign experts; here are a few highlights:

- Message still paramount. Almost every panelist agreed that campaigns must use new media to reinforce an established, compelling campaign message. Creating an account on Twitter is useless if it does not engage the campaign's followers in a unique and ongoing way.

- 'Day-to-day combat.' Modern campaigns now have to hire extra staff to manage the 24-hour chatter generated by blogs and online news sites like Politico, said Jennifer Palmieri, senior VP of communications at the Center for American Progress. Leslie Miller, senior communications director at Obama for America, noted that Obama's "bitter" comment went viral on a late Friday afternoon, when campaign staff would normally be winding down from a long week. Instead, the campaign was forced into a flurry of action.

The instantaneous speed of modern messaging creates both a challenge and opportunity in the "day-to-day combat" of contemporary politics, added Adam Mendelsohn, former communications director for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Though harmful news can spread like wildfire, a campaign's response can be delivered just as rapidly through similar channels.

- Endless opportunities... to succeed, and to stumble. Palmieri suggested that new media makes each individual interview less important, but I disagreed, noting that George Allen is no longer a presidential contender after a certain "macaca" moment, and Sarah Palin's turkey pardon interview is permanently embedded in the public's memory, thanks to YouTube and other media outlets.

Toward the end of the panel discussion, Schnur pointed out that the former managing editor of USC's student newspaper, the Daily Trojan, was present and live-blogging for a new online media outlet run through the USC Annenberg journalism school. Her shift from print to online, Schnur said, was representative of a greater, global transformation.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Actress: Tea Protestors Were Redneck Racists

Joshua Chaney — 2009-04-17T23:17:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Culture, Media, Muskingum College

Don't like high taxes or runaway government spending? You're a dumb, redneck racist.

That's essentially what liberal actor Janeane Garofalo said on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night. She was prompted to give a response on the Tea Party protests after Olbermann ranted on about the protesters "seething with hate." This from Olbermann, who essentially built an entire show around an hour-long, hate-filled rant about then president George W. Bush.

Olbermann still rants about Bush in a daily segment each on his show - 100 days after Bush left office, mind you. At what point is he forced to give it up? Still somehow - after Olbermann had finished his numerous immature references to male genitals, which he evidently thought were funny - Garofalo upstaged Olbermann on who could be the nuttiest hypocrite on stage.

"You know there is nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry," she led off with. She went on to describe how none of the protesters could tell what the speakers were saying, or knew history at all.

"Let's be very honest about what this is about: It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about, they don't know their history at all. This was about hating a black man in the White House," she said pointing her finger. "This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks and there is no way around that."

She couldn't just leave it at that, no way! She had much more hate left before she would be ready to give up the floor.

"You can tell these type of right-wingers anything and they'll believe it except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire -- they become confused and angry and highly volatile...The limbic brain of a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist. Their limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person and it's pushing against the frontal lobe so their synapses are misfiring."

There is nothing that can be done to fix conservatives -- or just people who think they pay too much in taxes, she said, because it's about racism.

If you are concerned about runaway government spending, you evidently are an uneducated, brain damaged, redneck, racist who is unable to decipher truth from fiction.

Paul Begala got a little worked up over the tea protests on Imus in the Morning Wednesday as well saying that Tax Day was "the proudest, most patriotic day for 99 percent of Americans, that we have all year."

Are 99 percent of Americans really going to think of tax day as the most patriotic day of the year? Not in this lifetime. What about real patriotic days like July 4th, Armistice Day, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, etc.?

Begala went on to a call tea partiers "Wimpy, whining weasels" who "don't love their country."

One thing is certain: Begala and Garofalo didn't seem to have a problem with whining throughout the past eight years.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

U.S. Realizes Cuba Policy Has Been a Failure

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-17T22:28:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Notre Dame

I guess you could call it the new "oops, our bad, guys" approach to foreign relations.

The same week that President Barack Obama decided to allow Cuban-Americans with relatives on the island nation to visit and send money without restrictions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic to talk about America's relations with other countries in the Americas, including Cuba.

At a digital town hall, she took a question from "Juan" of Cuba, who asked her about the embargo with Cuba, which has been in place for nearly 50 years. Clinton said Obama views engagement as a useful way to achieve the United States' objectives with other countries.

"We are continuing to look for more productive ways forward in dealing with Cuba, because President Obama and I and the Administration view the present policy toward Cuba as having failed," Clinton said.

Good, it only took us half a century to realize that. Maybe in another 50 years we'll be able to figure a way to get out of Iraq without leaving it a mess.
Obama is in Trinidad and Tobago now for the Summit of the Americas, which Cuba was not invited to, though he also made some overtures toward Cuba, saying the United States "seeks a new beginning with Cuba," according to a CNN report.

"I'm prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues -- from human rights, free speech and democratic reform to drugs, migration and economic issues," Obama said when he spoke Friday to representatives of 34 countries at the Summit of the Americas.

Obama did not list any specifics as to how he would like to see the U.S. relationship with Cuba develop. But he said he rejected the "stale debates" that have marked the past five decades of the U.S.-Cuba relationship.

"I didn't come here to debate the past -- I came here to deal with the future," he said, according to the CNN report. "As neighbors, we have a responsibility to each other and to our citizens. And by working together, we can take important steps forward to advance prosperity, security and liberty."

It will be interesting to see what changes to Cuba policy, if any, occur during the rest of the Summit of the Americas. Will the "oops, we've screwed up for the past several decades and we just realized it" approach work?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Conservative Filmmaker Tries To Get Arrested, Succeeds [Updated]

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-17T18:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, USC

John Ziegler is an idiot.

The conservative filmmaker/activist managed to get himself arrested Wednesday after trying to rile up opposition to a journalism award given to Katie Couric for her Sarah Palin interview. Now he's pushing a 20-minute video of his antics and subsequent arrest, claiming anti-conservative bias.

As a senior at the USC Annenberg School for Communication, I know almost everyone featured in the video, including the university officials, event organizers and campus police who Ziegler claims "literally abused" him. Not too surprisingly, Ziegler is wildly exaggerating what really happened:

In the days leading up to the event, Ziegler had announced his intention to protest the award. USC provided a gated space near the entrance of the event for demonstrators, but Ziegler and his film crew were the only ones to show up. So Ziegler started calling himself a journalist and demanding full access to the event.

Conveniently enough, a film crew is on hand to document Ziegler's plight, either brought by Ziegler or hired for the occasion. Ziegler, microphone in hand, repeatedly tries to get university officials to say something controversial, pouncing at every opportunity and offering slanted commentary to the camera.

Meanwhile, Zeigler still refuses to move to the area provided for visiting demonstrators, ten feet away. After putting up with Ziegler for nearly an hour, campus police tell Ziegler that he's made his point and is no longer welcome on campus. Of course, the university is well within its rights; Ziegler is standing on private property.

Ziegler cries foul and resists arrest, grunting, "You guys realize you're breaking all sorts of constitut-- I'm not gonna move!"

He's promptly escorted off campus. Feigning outrage, he went to Greta Van Susteren and Fox News for a softball interview so one-sided that it insults the journalism profession far more than any award.

The Drudge Report did its part by posting a link to the video, and Ziegler's website now reads: "I am simply shocked and horrified by what happened here, as should every freedom loving American. I did absolutely nothing wrong and I was handcuffed, detained and literally abused by law enforcement at the event."

What a joke.

Yes, the award was silly. But its actual title was "Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign." Though I don't think Couric deserves an award, it's a bit ridiculous to protest Annenberg for recognizing the national impact of the Couric interviews. Let's remember, Palin botched interviews on plenty of other occasions.

As I've said before about Zeigler, claims of liberal bias can usually be substantiated with the facts. As a registered Republican, I'm usually sympathetic to these claims. But Ziegler seems more intent on generating publicity stunts and manufactured outrage than actually serving any legitimate public interest.

It's an embarrassment to fellow conservatives.

* Update: USC Annenberg professor Marc Cooper writes on his personal blog that campus police responded poorly, but Ziegler showed up "hoping to goad the cops into action." Cooper also links to a revealing April 2005 profile of Ziegler in The Atlantic, which confirms some nagging suspicions about Ziegler's mental stability (remember the Nate Silver interview?).

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Announces $13 Billion Train Project

Adam Kirchner — 2009-04-17T00:11:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, National News, The Economy, Towson University

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced a $13 billion high-speed American rail transit development project on Thursday.

The transportation project will be funded by an initial down payment of $8 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds and an additional $1 billion per year for five years, beginning with the 2010 budget.

Ten regional rail systems have been identified for the project: the California Corridor, the Pacific Northwest Corridor, the South Central Corridor, the Gulf Coast Corridor, the Chicago Hub Network, the Florida Corridor, the Southeast Corridor, the Keystone Corridor, the Empire Corridor and the Northern New England Corridor.

Amtrak, the passenger rail system founded in 1971, operates with revenue below expenses and receives an annually increasing federal subsidy reaching $6.3 million for fiscal year 2013, as mandated in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

Additionally, Amtrak received $1.3 billion of the 2009 ARRA funds.

The difference between the existing rail transit system that operates at a $6.3 million annual deficit and the proposed rail transit system which will presumably operate at a staggering deficit, as well, is that the new rail transit system will have 150-mile-per-hour trains. Why have one underutilized, operationally inadequate transit system when American travelers can have two that are rarely used?

Of course, the new $13 billion high-speed train system is meant to serve as a disincentive for American travelers to drive the 100,000 automobiles that the Obama Administration encouraged them to buy three weeks ago.

Spend lots of money on more cars, while already spending lots of money to subsidize one underutilized rail transit system, then spend lots of money to build another rail transit system, then stop driving the cars that cost lots of money and ride the new underutilized rail transit system that cost lots of money to build and costs lots of money to operate, instead, while there already was an underutilized transit system?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Interrogation Memos Reveal Rough Treatment of Detainees

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-16T21:00:00+00:00

Filed under: News, Media, Notre Dame

The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday released four Office of Legal Counsel opinions that describe interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency during the Bush administration.

Politico reported that White House senior adviser David Axelrod said President Barack Obama spent a month trying to decide whether to release the memos about the techniques.

In a letter to the officers of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), posted on the agency's Web site, Obama thanked them for their service to the country. He said he made the decision the night before to allow the Justice Department to release the memos.

"I did not make this decision lightly," he wrote in the letter. "As you may know, the release is part of an ongoing court case. I have fought for the principle that the United States must carry out covert activities and hold information that is classified for the purpose of national security and will do so again in the future. But the release of these memos is required by our commitment to the rule of law."

Obama said that while he has prohibited use of the interrogation techniques described in the memo since he took office, he and Attorney General Eric Holder would "protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that their actions were lawful." Holder affirmed this in a Thursday news release from the Department of Justice.

The individuals in the CIA who carried out the harsh interrogation actions will not be prosecuted, or so Obama says. Will anyone?
Although most of the information described in the memos was already known in general terms by the public, reading the details about interrogation methods is chilling.

One of the memos is signed by Jay S. Bybee, a Justice Department official at the time, and addressed to CIA attorney John A. Rizzo, dated Aug. 1, 2002. The memo states that the proposed interrogation techniques described in the memo would not violate U.S. law prohibiting torture.

The prisoner being discussed is Abu Zubaydah, believed to be a high ranking member of al Qaeda. "The interrogation team is certain that he has additional information that he refuses to divulge," the memo says. In order to obtain this information, the CIA desired to move the interrogations to the "increased pressure phase."

The interrogators wished to use 10 techniques, the memo says, including cramped confinement, placing insects in a confinement box, facial slapping and and escalation to waterboarding. I think everyone knows what waterboarding is by now. "Walling" is a new one I haven't heard of, but it involves a flexible false wall and the interrogator pulling the prisoner forward, then quickly pushing him back toward the wall, which will make a loud noise to shock the individual, thereby creating a sensation which seems like it would be akin to being in a car crash.

The memo concluded that walling was okay, and that this technique, like the nine others listed in the memo, did not qualify as torture: "You have informed us that the sound of hitting the wall will actually be far worse than any possible injury to the individual. ... While it may hurt to be pushed against the wall, any pain experienced is not of the intensity associated with serious physical injury."

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta sent a letter to CIA employees Thursday reaffirming that he would oppose any efforts to punish those members of the CIA who followed the guidance of the Justice Department.

"Although this Administration has now put into place new policies that CIA is implementing, the fact remains that CIA's detention and interrogation effort was authorized and approved by our government," Panetta wrote.

This is true, but at some point, shouldn't someone have stood up to say, this is the United States? This isn't right?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments