Pundit and radio show host Glenn Beck, a man who possesses an evangelical flare for expressing his opinions to viewers, held his “Restoring Honor” Rally at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday morning, which was the anniversary date of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech.” The rally was a conscious attempt to not only re-appropriate the history of Martin Luther King Jr. but also to push the country closer toward adhering to more principles and tenets of Biblical Law.

Participants in the rally included Sarah Palin, Marcus Luttrell, the Liberty University Choir, Tony La Russa, Albert Pujols, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King.

You’d be forgiven if you thought Alveda King is someone who was like a Jackson in the Michael Jackson family—someone who is out to exploit the family name for profit and honor. King has said of homosexuality, “It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman.” During the rally, she called for more prayer in public schools and referred to abortion as “a womb war, which threatens the fabric of our society.”

Beck and organizers chose, prior to the rally, to put on an event that could be called “non-political,” to emphasize the religious devotion and the revival of spirit that could come out of this event instead. Those in attendance were not allowed to bring in signs that Americans could potentially see on the news, which would clearly indicate what percentage of the crowd was literate and sociopathic and what percentage was not.

While Beck did say that he wanted this rally to help “reclaim the civil rights movement,” the rally indicated Beck was uninterested in the black revolutionary spirit of King that pushed him to fight for de-segregation and equality and far more interested in using King as a prop who understood how faith and belief in God could unleash goodness and greatness in America.

In his speech, Beck offered up a story on the Washington monument that one could say proved Beck is committed to an onslaught on intellectual thinking. He used a story of the Washington monument—how it was being built until the Civil War and then was finished afterward—and argued that was a true example of American triumphalism. Only Beck would suggest that something that makes logical sense indicates America has a true spirit of resilience. And, really, the only reason monuments figure into Beck’s revivals and the only reason he holds them in the presence of memorials is because they provide a nice theater for his American revisionist history to be advanced.

Really, Beck’s rally was a right wing nationalist event featuring leaders collectively trying to control the past so they could control the future. In the exact way that George Orwell would have said totalitarians can gain power, this was really an attempt to control the history of MLK Jr., to manufacture it in a way that will feed into an agenda for moving America in whatever direction they want to go in. By doing this, what Glenn was saying was that he wanted people to focus on MLK as a black preacher. He didn’t want them to consider MLK Jr., the black revolutionary. He wished to remind the audience again and again about the ways that MLK Jr believed in God, the faith he had and the leadership he had from being a believer or follower of God but ignore the liberation aspects of King’s “Dream.”

Shared during the rally were Beck’s definitions of faith, hope and charity. Beck inadvertently seemed to be suggesting insanity was a synonym of faith as he said faith is “knowing and believing in something when all the circumstances surrounding you would indicate otherwise.” What he said on hope indicated he opposes President Obama’s view that hope is collective and that “we are all in this together”; his definition of hope, that it is “the parent of faith and charity,” the “light of the world,” and something that “must be rooted in truth and honor,” suggested hope was much closer to hope in the individual and not believing that the collective society could prevail. And, on charity, which he said was “opening your heart to another human being in his time of need,” Beck was giving himself cover for the fact that he does not support the economic redistribution of wealth and power that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Dream” speech was about in addition to ending segregation and granting equality and civil rights to all.

With the Special Operations Warrior Foundation sponsoring the rally, there was a confluence of faith in God with testimony on how honorable it is to serve in the military. Beck sought to compel Americans to join the military so that they could participate in a project to remake the globe that would involve confronting the forces of Satan and Christianizing the world so that it could be made new. The problem with this, as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) would attest to, is that asserting the military is some project for God means members of the military have to give up religious freedom. The very nature of the military requires uniformity so either you have a right to believe in whatever supreme beings you want or everyone is made to believe in a certain supreme being.

An army that promotes the idea of serving Christ not only puts people in the position of having to endure the most horrendous music known to the human ear, Christian rock, but it also creates a clash of civilizations. It invites right wing fundamentalist Muslims who see a “Christian” military fighting in countries that are predominantly Muslim and choose to attack so they can defend their homeland from “Christianization.”

Also, an overtly religious military, means wars are based predominantly in emotion and do not need evidence to support their prosecution. The cost of war, casualties, and the impact on the theater of war no longer matters because your cause is just in the eyes of God. What is being done is good and you must keep fighting until the job is done; the enemy is Satan and you must press on until victory.

Beck explained one of his favorite lines in the Declaration of Independence is, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” This was encouragement to Americans, especially those in the audience, to return America to God, to push America further toward being a country governed by Biblical law.

The media went along with Beck’s claim that the rally was “non-political” because it was religious and Beck hid the partisanship that was part of the motivation behind the rally. To anyone who believed anchors or pundits making this suggestion, the Tea Party provided staff and promotion to the rally, the National Rifle Association sponsored and promoted the event, FreedomWorks pledged to cater to attendees “political interests,” Americans for Prosperity, a major organization backed by right-wing billionaire David A. Koch of the oil giant Koch Industries, provided buses to the rally, FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots hosted their own corresponding events, Sarah Palin, a figure inextricably linked to the GOP, spoke at the rally, GOP members of Congress like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) raised money for the rally, Beck used political terms like “fix the capital,” “reclaim the civil rights movement,” Beck planned an “education convention” as precursor to the event that would teach followers “how to be a politician.”

More importantly, Americans do not like to separate religion from politics. A recent Pew Research Center poll on religion and public life indicated “they feel strongly that politicians should be religious.” Sixty-one percent agreed “it was important that members of Congress have strong religious beliefs.” Forty-three percent suggested churches should express their views on day-to-day social and political issues. Somewhere between seventy and ninety percent of Americans believe in God or practice a religion. An ABC News poll “found sixty-one percent believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis” to be “literally true” and not just a “story meant as a lesson.” And, “about one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.”

So, can a media pundit or news anchor really look in to the camera and say Beck’s rally was “non-political” without acknowledging how intertwined religion and politics is in America?

Many who are liberal, progressive or Democrat would say Beck’s rally was a distraction, that we should stay focused on the economy and not discuss this topic because it’s what Republicans want to talk about so they can win votes in the election. They would assert that Beck is trying to take a movement because Obama is in the White House. That’s not to say that is untrue, but there’s also truth in the fact that the economy can play a huge role in pushing fearful followers of Christ into people who tap into hate, prejudice and bigotry in the worst of times and attack minorities because a leader tells them those are the evildoers who are making the country impure.

There’s an analogy to be drawn to an episode of the Twilight Zone called, “He’s Alive!” It was Twilight Zone’s creator Rod Serling’s warning to Americans that as long as ignorance and hate persists so too will characters who are perpetually hungry for greatness, who are looking to exploit ignorance and hate for honor and power.

On first look, Beck’s rally seemed like an event organized so that tens of thousands of fearful easy-to-manipulate would give him a strokejob. When one goes deeper, it’s much darker than that—Beck wanted a strokejob, but he wanted that to also be part of pushing the country closer to one that abandons religious pluralism, forsakes the idea of separation of church and state, and marches onward toward the kind of closed-minded society most Americans would condemn Muslims for instituting.

The response to developers and supporters with connections to the Muslim community in New York City, who wish to construct an Islamic cultural center that many now refer to as the “Ground Zero Mosque,” has a toxicity that is repulsive and entirely objectionable. Unfortunately, Democrats have shown an utter lack of leadership and continue to fail to confront the right wing’s whipping up of hysterical patriotism that has translated into fear and hatred toward Muslims.

This isn’t the first time they have been spineless or weak on an issue (which is why they should consider changing their mascot from a donkey to an invertebrate). And, normally, one may want to suggest that they are actually in agreement with Republicans so their words in opposition to the GOP are to appease Democratic voters because in the end they know they won’t be able to build political support in Congress to stop Republicans from getting their way. However, with leaders like Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Howard Dean out in front on this, it’s quite clear that many Democrats empathize with the Muslim community but subscribe to an inversion of a key belief that American abolitionist, orator, writer, statesman Frederick Douglass had about change.

Douglass is remembered for saying, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.”

Howard Dean, who clearly subscribes to inverting this Douglass’ quote, suggested that the “mosque” be moved:

“This center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens. That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are “justified” or not. No doubt the Republic will survive if this center is built on its current site or not. But I think this is a missed opportunity to try to have an open discussion about why this is a big deal, because it is a big deal to a lot of Americans who are not just right-wing politicians pushing the hate button again. I think those people need to be heard respectfully, whether they are right or whether they are wrong”

Dean’s position subverts the tradition of progress in America. Glenn Greenwald suggested to Dean that is position was similar to if African-Americans, who wanted to sit at the front of the bus, had been told to be sensitive because some people weren’t ready for equality so why not compromise and sit in the middle of the bus. Certainly, if people like Dean had handled the situation during the civil rights era, they would have sought to minimize the struggle being waged against white supremacists by those who were for equality. And how much change would have taken place? What important conversations would have been avoided? What injustices would not have been corrected?

But, this is typical Democratic Party gutlessness and not surprising; it’s how Democrats approached the debate on health care. They maintained Democratic politicians needed to compromise with politicians promoting fear of a government takeover of health care and the notion of “death panels.” They allowed Republicans to obstruct their health care agenda and, ultimately, Republicans won because no public option or Medicare buy-in made it into the final legislation.

This is also the same frail and hapless ideology Democrats have adopted in the face of the conservative media echo chamber who have won victories and hung the scalps of Van Jones, Dawn Johnsen, and Shirley Sherrod on their “hunter’s wall” as a testament of their power over Democrats. They’ve also successfully imposed career barriers for Yosi Sergeant, Shepard Fairey, Patrick Gaspard, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Mark Lloyd all people who were going to be part of the Obama Administration until the right wing began to make insane claims about what the aforementioned people stood for.

The Democrats have treated this as a problem. Rather than work to shift the anti-Islam consensus growing in this country, party leaders have negligently hoped the resistance to the “mosque” would go away (liberal op-ed writers have even promoted this hope).

Sen. Reid (D-NV) has stated, “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion” but “the mosque should be built some place else.”

Jeff Greene, a Democrat running for the Senate in Florida, has claimed, “President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near Ground Zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged [about] and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers.” He makes a distinction between the right to build the mosque and the need for common sense and respect for those who lost loved ones in 9/11.

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) has said, “There should be some discussion about what is right morally, as well as just what you’re allowed to do”I think that the people who are supportive of putting the mosque there are missing the point of the impact and the devastation that [Sept. 11] had to us as a country.”

A number of New York Democrats have chosen to not stand up to those opposed to the project, who advance the belief that Islam is an entirely objectionable religion (as some in the movement against the “mosque” would contend, a “cult” religion from “the pit of Hell”).

Rep. Mike McMahon has said, “Muslim Americans deserve the right to practice their faith — as we all do. I believe a new location is the right compromise so that Muslim Americans can worship without eliciting feelings that push us away from our country’s basic tenet of religious acceptance while the families of 9/11 victims obtain the peace of mind they deserve.”

Rep. Steve Israel has explained, “While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque, it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. I urge them to do so before proceeding further.”

Rep. Tim Bishop, has asserted, “As a New Yorker, I believe ground zero is sacred ground and should unite us. If the group seeking to build the mosque is sincere in its efforts to bring people together, I would urge them to seek an alternative location which is less divisive. I dispute the wisdom of building at that location, not the constitutional right.”

And, Democratic Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) actually forced Republican challenger Richard Hanna to flip-flop. Hanna had said, “It’s extremely easy to understand why people are upset by this, but this country was founded by people who were running away from religious persecution.” But, Arcuri asserted, “The pain felt by many Americans from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is still very real, and I can understand how the thought of building a mosque near Ground Zero could reopen those wounds. For the sake of the victims and their families, I think another location should be chosen.”

Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) lack of leadership has muddied the situation by writing a letter with an incoherent position saying he supported the “constitutional protection of religion from the overreach of government” but that he wanted sensitivity and concern for 9/11 families to be displayed.

One Democrat from New York, Jerrold Nadler, has been sharp in his statements in favor of the Islamic cultural center. Nadler said on CNN’s “State of the Union”:

NADLER: [W]hat they are saying essentially is how can you put a mosque there when, after all, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and this is ripping open a wound? Well, the fallacy is that Al Qaida attacked us. Islam did not attack us. Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, like other religions, has many different people, some of whom regard other adherents of the religion as heretics of one sort or another. It is only insensitive if you regard Islam as the culprit, as opposed to Al Qaida as the culprit. We were not attacked by all Muslims. And there were Muslims who were killed there, there were Muslims who were killed there. There were Muslims who ran in as first responders to help. And we cannot take any position like that. [emphasis added]

Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL) has been out in front on this. So has House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, but she didn’t help. Her statement, which was a call to investigate the “mosque opposition,” was red meat for the wolves, who likely heard Pelosi and immediately thought Pelosi should be investigated to see if she is funded by radical Islamic charities.

The two Muslim-Americans in Congress have voiced support. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has urged Americans to not let those opposed to the Islamic cultural center “write the recruiting script” for al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups. And, Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) supports the “mosque” and asked, “Are we a country of laws and principles? Or are we a question who will be moved by the winds of emotion each and every time there are issues that come up to divert us from the true meaning and intent of the Founding Fathers?”

Americans have heard Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rep. Peter King, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Lazio, Carl Paladino, Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, William Kristol, and a plethora of members from the anti-Islam industry who have appeared on FOX News and CNN (all supporters of the group, Stop911Mosque.com, which has made this a controversy. Unfortunately, when Democrats fail to provide a distinct position and alternative to the agenda of hate being put forth by right wing leaders and scholars, they become complicit and partly responsible.

The seething and venomous mob that has taken over the discussion on what Muslims will do if a cultural center is built near Ground Zero will not accept compromise. They don’t deserve any sympathy or understanding. They will never sit down and listen to the reasons why Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and others want to build the center. They will only make more citizens in the world think America supports a war on Islam.

Democrats, and, more importantly, Americans must use this struggle as opportunity to make progress. It is a chance for truth and reconciliation with the Muslim community in America, something Americans desperately need so they can abandon the post-9/11 mentality that has shackled this nation in chains of fear and anxiety and produced phobic movements like the one we are witnessing in New York against a so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” and other Islamic places of worship in the country.

The following is from the “Stop the Islamization of America” Rally held against the “Ground Zero Mosque” on Sunday, August 22nd. It shows protesters mistaking an African-American man for a Muslim, a prime example of the hatred fueling this movement against Islam.

Man Mistaken For Muslim Harassed at NY Anti-Mosque Rally

Soldiers from the 17th Fires Brigade and 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division. Taken in August 2009. by The U.S. Army

On the same night that the NBC news corporation had the "inside scoop" on America’s withdrawal of combat brigades from Iraq to Kuwait, Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired career officer in the U.S. Army, discussed his new book Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War at the First United Methodist Church in downtown Chicago.

During the discussion, Bacevich explained to a room packed with standing room only that the Obama Administration’s movement of troops from Iraq is part of a plan to make Americans (and others in the world) think of this as some end point. But, the fact is that the Iraq War will continue, violence will continue, and the insurgency will still exist.

Bacevich added the officers likely believe this outcome is as good as it will get. The troops will now move into an "advise-and-assist" role not much different from a role troops had during part of the Vietnam War. And, this is because much of the military establishment and foreign policymakers no longer believe in "military solutions." The "officer corps" have resigned themselves to the fact that true victory, in the sense that Americans understand it, is impossible; they accept the fact wars from this point on will be protracted, dirty, costly, and will from now on end in an ambiguous way if they end at all.

Cue Richard Engel, who, embedded with the combat brigades that were leaving Iraq and claiming "victory," reported live for NBC. Cue Rachel Maddow who had been in hiding the past few days because she didn’t want anyone to know the "withdrawal" was going to begin Thursday night and she’d be reporting from the scene. And, cue MSNBC’s special coverage of the "end" of the Iraq War, which featured the all-star panel that many know from MSNBC’s Election Coverage.

The exit of brigades was heavily orchestrated. NBC had the express permission from the Pentagon to give the "official announcement" that war was "over"(although the Pentagon now claims nobody said the war was over) and troops were coming home (well, some of them; some are going to Afghanistan). The Associated Press reported "NBC Executive Phil Griffin said "Given the access, a decision to devote the entire evening to the story was a "no-brainer," Griffin said. "We’ve got something unique and it’s an important story. We said, ‘Let’s go for it.’"

It was an opportunity to manufacture support for the withdrawal and help the Pentagon sell this as victory. It was an opportunity to convince those watching that soldiers had done a good deed for humanity and that, despite fears, Iraqis will be able to secure the country.

Little time was spent trying to argue this was a complete withdrawal, however, NBC News Chief Correspondent Richard Engel reported "50,000 troops remaining, noncombat troops would stay behind and will have a "mandate" to be "trainers." Here, Engel essentially helped the Pentagon re-brand the war by explaining troops would not to be called into "direct combat operations." If there were incidents and the U.S. wished to respond, he said, they would have to file a "formal request for troops."

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, said "there’s a worry that Iraqis may continue to fail to gain political traction and put together a government that can properly run Iraq." Hill also made clear "Iraq is important" to "American interests." He called it a "major league country" and expressed the belief that the U.S. must have a presence and mentioned America’s "impressive" embassy.

The all-star panel did not focus on whether it was right or wrong to fight the war. Criticisms were limited to tactical mistakes the military had made in the war.

Lawrence O’Donnell contended, initially, there was "no comprehension of the rebuilding required." O’Donnell noted how Coalition Provisional Authority leader Paul Bremer decided to completely disband the Iraqi military, the Iraqi police force and the bureaucracy of the government, "the people who knew how to deliver electricity, water, things like that throughout the country."

Chris Matthews argued Iraq was always an "ideological war" and talked of the "neocons and those who drank the Kool-Aid like Rumsfeld" and thought "the government in Iraq would topple the minute we went in there." Matthews suggested the neocons thought, "it wouldn’t take a long, protracted struggle to subdue the country because we would be liberators — we were liberators. They really believed that ideology that we’re going in there to free those people from the scourge of Baathism and then it proceeded to get rid of the Baathist army, get rid of the Baath Party politically throughout the agency."

Interestingly, Col. Jacobs stated he couldn’t remember a "single" country that America ever fought an unconventional war or limited war in and left better than when America went in. In contrast, O’Donnell directed attention to the fact that Vietnam is now a "vacation spot for American tourists" as if to suggest things could work out after all a Middle East Disneyland and other resorts could potentially stabilize this country.

Engel spoke on the issue of Iran and its influence on Iraq and how the war had helped increase Iran’s influence in Iraq. And, finally, there was attention paid to the Iraqis. Engel said:

I’ve been listening not only to what the soldiers say but some of your guests and we’re hearing this mantra building over and over again that the U.S. won the war in Iraq and then the Iraqis lost it or are potentially losing it. And I think that is true to a degree. But you also have to be cautious with that argument.

 

The United States in these last several years made quite a few mistakes in this country. And not to blame the people who are in these trucks, these sergeants and privates and first sergeants, they didn’t. But there were policy errors — there was the dissolving of the Iraqi army, which forced them to rebuild an army. There was the outbreak of civil war in this country which troops were then called in to try and pacify. But for many reasons, that civil war broke up because there were never enough troops here to begin with.

This mantra is not new and could be heard years ago when news organizations managed to find time in their newscasts to cover the Iraq War. This narrative implied Iraqis were ungrateful for the liberation (or war and occupation) America had brought to their country.

Soldiers interviewed, for the most part, contended Iraqis were better off and they were glad the U.S. was able to do something good for them and were able to come around and close it on a good note. They contended Iraqi army and police would be able to handle their situation as they did in 2007 and could hold their own without American support now.

There is a sober reality that cannot be forgotten in the midst of the patriotic cheering for troops who are homeward bound. Thousands of contractors will remain in the country. How they cooperate with the Iraqi army and police will likely determine the level of stability Iraq manages to achieve in the coming months.

Up to a million Iraqis are dead. At least 100 trillion dollars was spent. More than 4,000 U.S. soldiers died in combat (and a number of contractors died as well). The Independent reports "human rights groups say extra-judicial killings, kidnappings, torture, bribery and corruption are still endemic with little accountability for perpetrators" and "more than 5 million Iraqis have been turned into refugees since the invasion, with 2.7 million of those displaced internally. Some live with relatives, others in public buildings."

Furthermore, The Independent notes that while Iraqis may have some economic prosperity to look forward to as foreign companies flock to the region to take advantage of the country’s natural resources, "unemployment runs at close to 40 per cent and GDP per capita remains a paltry $3,200." More importantly, "The presence of an occupying non-Muslim force in the heart of the Middle East sent Islamist militants flocking to Iraq with devastating consequences for both Iraq and its neighbours. Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon have all seen al-Qa’ida-inspired militant activity increase with varying levels of success."

Robert Fisk, who recently reported on the impact America’s use of chemical weapons had in Fallujah, wrote a damning editorial on America saying "goodbye." An excerpt:

"…the millions of American soldiers who have passed through Iraq have brought the Iraqis a plague. From Afghanistan in which they showed as much interest after 2001 as they will show when they start "leaving" that country next year they brought the infection of al-Qa’ida. They brought the disease of civil war. They injected Iraq with corruption on a grand scale. They stamped the seal of torture on Abu Ghraib a worthy successor to the same prison under Saddam’s vile rule after stamping the seal of torture on Bagram and the black prisons of Afghanistan. They sectarianised a country that, for all its Saddamite brutality and corruption, had hitherto held its Sunnis and Shias together…"

Few politicians will have the courage to say anything like that and interrupt what the Obama Administration will likely demand liberals or progressives celebrate as an end to the war or else. Few politicians except Dennis Kucinich, the politician White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs happens to think the "professional left" would not be satisfied with if he was president. Kucinich put out this press release proclaiming the "war in Iraq has entered a new stage of public relations":

Who is in charge of our operations in Iraq, now? George Orwell? A war based on lies continues to be a war based on lies. Today, we have a war that is not a war, with combat troops who are not combat troops. In 2003, President Bush said ‘Mission Accomplished’. In 2010, the White House says combat operations are over in Iraq, but will leave 50,000 troops, many of whom will inevitably be involved in combat-related activities.

Just seven days ago, General Babaker Shawkat Zebari, the commander of Iraq’s military, said that Iraq’s security forces will not be trained and ready to take over security for another 10 years. One story is being told to the military on the ground in Iraq and another story is being told to their families back home.

You can’t be in and out at the same time.

This is not the end of the war; this is simply a new stage in the campaign to lull the American people into accepting an open-ended presence in Iraq. This is not an honest accounting to the American people and it diminishes the role of the troops who will put their lives on the line. This is not fair to the troops, their families or the American people.

The Administration and the Pentagon would be wise to level with the American people about our long-term commitment to Iraq.

The cost of the wars has been estimated to be around $1 million per soldier per year. Each year the troop levels stay at 50,000 means another $50 billion is wasted. I object to spending billions of dollars to maintain a charade in Iraq while our own economy is failing and over 15 million Americans are out of work. I object to keeping any level troops in Iraq to maintain a war based on lies. It is time that Congress sees through the manipulation and finally acts to truly end the war by stopping its funding."

NBC’s cooperation with the Pentagon to bring Americans "closure" to the Iraq War Thursday night—to bring families with loved ones serving in the Iraq War "closure"—provided more evidence that U.S. media is solely concerned with the American perspective of war and cares little about the impact war has on the people many of the troops think they have liberated.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) reported in 2008, the percentage of news coverage devoted to the Iraq War was 4% down from 24% in January 2007 when President Bush announced the "surge" strategy. And, PEJ reported in 2007 that "although the bloodshed [was] occurring about 6,000 miles from Washington, coverage of the conflict [had] been overwhelmingly U.S.-centric. More than 80% of war news focused on Americans — those shaping policy, fighting or affected at home. Only about one in six stories about the war was about Iraqis, whether about their government, their lives, or their casualties.

U.S. media helped deceive the public into buying the Iraq War. They helped the Pentagon construct a case for war in Iraq just over seven years ago. So, how fitting is it that the endpoint of this travesty in American history would involve the media asking Americans to buy the "victory."

In the end, Brian Stelter, writing for the New York Times‘ Media Decoder Blog, characterizes what happened best (and affirms Rep. Kucinich’s contentions on the withdrawal):

The images from NBC and other outlets are important for the United States as a public relations tool, as they reaffirm with color and sound that the country is winding down a widely unpopular combat mission. But they are in part a media construct. Though the media may yearn for a dramatic finish to the war, there is not likely to be one, at least not yet.

This graffiti image of a guantanamo prisoner was painted on one of the fences. This is of course welcomed at Glastonbury… by Peter Burgess

Mentally Ill Detainee Ordered to Be Released in 2004 Still at Guantanamo

Carol Rosenberg, a journalist for the Miami Herald and one of the few journalists who continue to follow
operations and proceedings at the Guantanamo Bay prison reports “an emotionally
ill detainee still being held at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, was first recommended for release by the Pentagon in 2004.”

Rosenberg writes:

“Despite the Pentagon’s recommendation, it wasn’t until 2007
that the Bush administration adopted the military assessment and put Adnan
Abdul Latif, now about 34, on an approved transfer list. By then, however, the
issue of transferring prisoners to Yemen, Osama bin Laden’s ancestral homeland,
was mired in a diplomatic standoff over whether the Arabian Peninsula nation
could provide security assurances and rehabilitate suspected radicalized
Guantanamo detainees.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy disclosed the
timeline in a heavily censored 28-page ruling made public on Monday night that
ordered Latif set free. Latif is the 38th Guantanamo captive to be found by a
federal judge to be illegally detained at the remote U.S. Navy base.”

Ordered to be released by Kennedy on July 21, the Justice
Department has been deciding whether to appeal the decision.

Latif’s lawyer, David Remes, says “why they continue to
defend holding him is unfathomable” and contends, “Adnan’s case reflects the
Obama administration’s complete failure to bring the Guantanamo litigation
under control.”

The detention of Latif is yet another incredibly disturbing
indictment of a system developed to aid U.S prosecution of the “war on terror.”
Andy Worthington, author of The
Guantanamo Files, detailed Latif’s capture:

“26-year
old Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif (identified by the Pentagon Ab Aljallil Allal or
Allal Ab Aljallil Abd Al Rahman Abd) stated that he had sustained a serious
head injury in an automobile accident in 1994, and had spent years trying to
find affordable medical treatment. After being told about the health-care office
of a Pakistani aid worker in Afghanistan who would treat him, he said that he
traveled to Afghanistan in 2001, and explained that, when the US-led invasion
began, he fled to the border town of Khost and then made his way into Pakistan,
where he was arrested by Pakistani forces, along with about 30 other
Arabic-looking men. He told his lawyer, Marc Falkoff, that he later learned
that each of them had been turned over to the US military for a bounty of
$5000.

In
his tribunal at Guantánamo, Latif appeared bewildered, refuting what he
believed was an allegation that he came from a place called al-Qaeda by saying,
“I am from Orday City in Yemen, not a city in al-Qaeda. My city is very far
away from the city of al-Qaeda,” which perhaps reinforces his claim that he had
traveled to Afghanistan to receive treatment for a fractured skull.”

In
a recent post, Worthington illuminates his attorney, Marc Falkoff’s, reaction
to the “unclassified summary of evidence”

“[W]hen I first saw the
accusations, I thought they looked serious [but] when I looked at the
government’s evidence, I was amazed. There was nothing there.
Nothing at all trustworthy. Nothing that could be admitted into evidence in a
court of law. Nothing that was remotely persuasive, even leaving legal niceties
aside.” At most, he added, “there was incredibly unreliable hearsay, often
taken from other detainees who were — in the
words of a military representative — “known liars,’ or else whom we now
know to have been tortured.”

Latif’s detention has driven him mad and turned him into a
hazard to himself. An appeal issued in May 2009 by Amnesty International, as
Worthington notes, described a “suicide attempt that took place on May 10, 2009,
when he cut one of his wrists during a meeting” with Remes, his attorney.

“After the incident, Remes explained that Latif “chipped off
a piece of the stiff veneer on the underside of our conference table and used
it to saw into a vein in his left wrist ” As he sawed, he drained his blood
into a plastic container and, shortly before it was time for me to leave, he
hurled the blood at me from the container.” As Amnesty also explained, “A
spokesman at Guantánamo confirmed the incident took place but said it could not
be classified as a suicide attempt.”

Amnesty also noted that Latif had been “held in solitary
confinement in the psychiatric ward at Guantánamo since at least November
2008,” and that he told his lawyers that “when he is awake he sees ghosts in
the darkness, hears frightening voices and suffers from nightmares when he is
asleep.” He also told his lawyers that he had “ingested all sorts of materials
including garbage bags, urine cups, prayer beads, a water bottle and a screw,”
that he had “eaten his own excrement and smeared it on his body” and that he
had “used his own excrement to cover the walls of his cell door, the camera on
the ceiling of his cell and the air vent in his cell.”

In addition, Amnesty noted that Latif reportedly suffered
from “a number of physical health problems, including a fractured cheekbone, a
shattered eardrum, blindness in one eye, a dislocated shoulder blade, and a
possibly dislocated knee.” Latif also said that he suffered “constant throat
and stomach pain which [made] it difficult for him to eat,” but that, instead
of dealing with this in an appropriate manner, the authorities strapped him in
a restraint chair and force-fed him up to three times a day through a tube
pushed up his nose into his stomach”

Rosenberg reports that recently Latif met his lawyer in “a
padded green garment held together by Velcro called a “suicide smock.” He
had “been stripped of his underwear,” and put into this “smock” which have been
display for “reporters during camp tours.” And, the “5-feet-4-inches” detainee”
is now 93 pounds having lost more than twenty pounds since his arrival at the
prison in January 2002.

As reported by AP in
May 2009, after Latif’s suicide attempt, “the military says
many incidents are not actual suicide attempts but merely “self-harm
incidents” intended to gain attention.”

The only problem with that argument is
that “self-harm” is haram, which
means it is not allowed in Islam. Muslims do not think their body is theirs. It
belongs to Allah. If they do not treat their body properly, their body will be
a testimony against their day of judgment before Allah. Latif’s desecration of
his body affirms his attorney’s belief that Latif “sees death as his only way
out.”

Scott Horton with Harper’s
Magazine has written about how the “suicides” are likely part of a cover-up
of military wrongdoing at Guantanamo.

Latif’s case is but another example of
what “the New Normal” does to human beings who get caught up in its inner
workings. While presidential candidate Barack Obama said, after a Supreme Court
ruling on June 12, 2008, that detainees held in Guantanamo Bay have a
constitutional right to challenge their detention—”Today’s Supreme
Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to
justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court’s decision is a
rejection of the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at
Guantanamo – yet another failed policy supported by John McCain”—President
Obama has continued to attempt to create “a legal black hole at Guantanamo.”

As the ACLU noted in their condemning report, “Establishing a New Normal“:

“It was a promising beginning, but eighteen months [since
Obama's Inauguration] Guantanamo is still open and some 180 prisoners remain
there. The administration is not solely responsible for missing this one-year
deadline; Congress has obstructed any possible relocation of even indisputably
innocent detainees like the Chines Uighurs to the United States, thereby
rendering diplomatic efforts to relocate detainees in Europe and elsewhere more
difficult. And the administration deserves credit for releasing some 67
detainees from Guantanamo. But the Obama administration’s decision to halt all
detainee releases to Yemen–even when the detainees have been cleared for
release after years of harsh detention–has been a major factor in the prison’s
remaining open; a majority of the remaining detainees are Yemeni. Moreover, the
administration bears responsibility for opposing in court the release of
detainees against whom the government has scant evidence of wrongdoing.

A FEW NOTES ON THE NEW NORMAL

Whether it’s the case of Latif or the case of 15-year old Omar
Khadr, who was threatened with gang rape if he didn’t confess to committing a
war crime, or the case of Canadian Maher Arar, who was interrogated and
tortured (beaten with an electrical cable), or countless others who pursue release from detention because there is no evidence against them, the U.S. continues to have a moral imperative
to close Guantanamo (and other prisons).

The system of detention and the Kafkaesque legal system
detainees are being put through
serves as a way of entrenching America in a permanent state of war. It strengthens this idea that some humans, in this global war, are less free than others.

If we think the uproar against the “Ground Zero Mosque” in
this country upsets the Muslim World, we should shudder at the thought of
what radical effect America’s extralegal system for detainees has had on
Muslims. Not only should America make peace with Islam and uphold religious
tolerance by allowing mosques to be built in America, but it should also end
the factory of crimes against humanity that is Guantanamo Bay Prison.

The hysteria surrounding the “Ground Zero Mosque” that really cannot be seen from Ground Zero has nothing to do with some impending Islamic fundamentalist quest to impose Sharia Law in America. It has everything to do with a toxic patriotism fueled by evangelical political activism in this country.

Few know how this “controversy” was manufactured, how the Islamic cultural center became a political football or tool for exploiting fear of Muslims among Americans. And, at this point, one might think it doesn’t really matter: the right wing assault on Muslims’ private property rights continues unabashedly even though there should be no discussion at all and those behind the project should just take their project somewhere else.

The latest developments in sheer paranoia and outright xenophobia include anti-Obama author and Jerusalem bureau chief of the right-wing website WorldNetDaily.com Aaron Klein’s interview with Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar on his WABC radio show on Sunday. Klein was able to get Al-Zahar to say Muslims “have to build the mosque, as you are allowed to build the church and Israelis are building their holy places”we have to build everywhere.” And, this touched off an eruption of echoes among conservative media as the leader’s position was immediately connected to Obama through headlines suggesting Hamas backs Obama–the impetus being if Hamas supports Obama we should all fear his support for the mosque in the same way we feared Obama’s association to Bill Ayers during the election.

Newt Gingrich appeared on “Fox & Friends” to say, “The folks who want to build this mosque — who are really radical Islamists who want to triumphally prove that they can build a mosque right next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists — those folks don’t have any interest in reaching out to the community. They’re trying to make a case about supremacy. That’s why they won’t go anywhere else, that’s why they won’t accept any other offer.”

Gingrich went a step further comparing Muslims to Nazis:

“And I think we ought to be honest about the fact that we have a right — and this happens all the time in America. You know, Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly stated “build the mosque somewhere else” seemingly adopting his Republican opponent Sharron Angle’s position that one must “say no to the mosque at Ground Zero” or “side with President Obama” and be “against the families of 9/11 victims.”

Finally, there was Don Lemon on CNN expressing, as Glenn Greenwald writes, “the crux of the “mosque’ opposition“:

Lemon: Don’t you think it’s a bit different considering what happened on 9/11? And the people have said there’s a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that’s why it’s being built there. What about 10, 20 blocks . . . Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this? That’s not understandable?

Patel: In America, we don’t tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place –

Lemon: [interrupting] I understand that, but there’s always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance. You understand that this is very heated. Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 –

Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . . .

Lemon: Consider the context here. That’s what I’m talking about.

Patel:I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago:you can sit anywhere on the bus you like – just not in the front.

Lemon:I think that’s apples and oranges -I don’t think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building.That’s a completely different circumstance.

Patel: And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either. [emphasis not added]

More patently absurd was Tim Brown, a retired NYC firefighter who survived 9/11 who recounted a story at the tail end of the segment featuring Lemon and Patel involving a woman who “spoke at the Landmark Preservation Commission here and very passionately against the mosque and when she walked out and went to her car she had a heart attack.” Brown added, “This is what is being done to the families of 9/11.”

The bizarre notion that not only all of the Muslim world should pay for the few extremists that targeted the World Trade Center but they should also pay for people who are suffering physical hardships because they have to defend against the so-called insensitivity of Islam toward 9/11 victims provides one of the best examples of how this controversy is born out of Islamophobia. Brown’s comment suggests there is no thing those against the “mosque” that opponents will not blame Muslims for.

So, how did we get to here? How did Americans get dragged into some argument against Islam that solely consists of sentences comprised of a noun, a verb and 9/11? Didn’t Rudolph Giuliani lose big in the 2008 Election?

Justin Elliott over at Salon.com constructed a timeline that demonstrates the story first was discussed when Laura Ingraham interviewed Abdul Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, while guest-hosting “The O’Reilly Factor.” Ingraham surprisingly said, “I can’t find many people who really have a problem” with the “mosque.” She said she liked what the people behind the project were trying to do. Then, five and a half months later, on May 6, 2010, a New York community board approved the “WTC Mosque.” The AP quoted 9/11 families. The New York Post, which a lot of right wing opinion makers read.

From this point on groups like Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) began to hold protests and campaign against the “mosque.” It is then that “professionals of the anti-Islam industry” began to propagandize the project eventually earning a victory when New York Post columnist first used the phrase “ground zero mosque” (and also falsely reported the Cordoba House [Park51] would open on September 11, 2011.

The manufacturing of this controversy proves this is about much more than religious freedom and 9/11 families. What those against the “mosque” really want is for Americans to constantly relive the horror of 9/11 on a daily basis, live in a state of post-trauma for eternity, and never forget how extremists with a religion that has often been at odds with prominent Western religions attacked America.

The most outspoken opponents of this mosque seek to maintain a shared purpose, a national identity that became the context for domestic and foreign politics after 9/11. They seek to further entrench America in a war against Islam.

Opponents tremble in fear because their triumphalism–largely derived from their evangelical Christianity and other Christian denominations–is threatened by the interfaith goals of dialogue that this Islamic cultural center has adopted. They do not want dialogue. They want only to maintain their religion and further institute Biblical law in American society.

Zealous businessmen and snake politicians have charted a course for power, opted to exploit not only the families who lost loved ones in 9/11 but also exploit the energy produced by evangelical religion’s activism in politics and channel it into this manufactured controversy they hope will help them win elections in November.

These religious archaists market beliefs and aim to attract customers they can convert into consumers that will follow their precepts. They hope their consumers will join them in the further construction of American mythology to serve their agenda for reorienting this nation and realigning this country with their beliefs.

The vanguard of opposition to the mosque follows the ideology of Samuel Huntington, a foreign policy thinker who had great influence over the past twenty years of American foreign policy. They like Huntington believe “America is different and that difference is defined in large part by its religious commitment and Anglo-Protestant culture.” They like Huntington think “at the heart of that culture has been Protestantism and the political and social restitutions and practices inherited from England, including most notably the English language.” And, they believe “Americans are also overwhelmingly Christian, which distinguishes them from many non-Western peoples” and “their religiosity leads Americans to see the world in terms of good and evil to a much greater extent than most other peoples.”

The propagandistic idea that the mosque should not be built because all Muslims should continue to pay for 9/11 stems from the toxic patriotism or right-wing nationalism of a section of society who has put its political energy behind American military might, preemptive war, promotion of ignorance toward the way America radicalizes societies who adopt Islamic fundamentalism as a tool of resistance, and xenophobia.

Demagoguery and ideology neurotically controls a sect of American society and culture. Our opposition to the construction of the mosque, whether we adopt the position to win elections in November or because we have been grieving for 9/11 families and constantly terrified by our leaders exploitation of the attacks so they can achieve power, gives the upperhand to religious demagogues and ideologues. It violates core principles of our nation’s Constitution, principles President Obama and Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg have called upon citizens to support and uphold.

Religious freedom did not become part of our nation’s core principles because people thought Americans would be comfortable with all religions. It became part of our principles because people understood all Americans should have the right to practice religion openly and freely.

Since 9/11, Muslims have been attacked and demonized in many sections of the country. This should not be allowed, we as a nation should not be complicit and silent, and we who care deeply about this nation should speak out in support of the mosque not because we are religious or support Islamic beliefs but because attacks and demonization should cease in this country now.

Jingoistic demonstration in Zucotti Park against proposed Islamic Cultural Center a few blocks from Ground Zero. Later, someone garlanded the proposed site with dirty shoes, raw porkchops, and cartoons of the Prophet. by Johnnie Utah

President Barack Obama stepped into the middle of a swirl of prejudicial vitriol and unashamed hatred surrounding the building of an Islamic cultural center several blocks away from Ground Zero.

Appearing at Friday night’s iftar dinner at the White House, held to mark the breaking of the daily Ramadan feast, in a safe space away from Islamophobic politicians and pundits who have been disinforming Americans on the building of a “Ground Zero mosque” for weeks now, Obama declared in a speech:

…Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities — particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure…

Obama’s remarks were insightful and courageous and along the lines of comments from New York City’s Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg just over a week ago. Bloomberg, too, argued “the government has no right whatsoever to deny” the right to those who wish to build a mosque and stated, “if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.”

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion?” asked Mayor Bloomberg. “That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.”

And, from a place of great reason, to strike a blow to unthinking people who are running around making outlandish claims about Muslims and terror babies and how Islamic people wish to impose Sharia law on America, Bloomberg stated:

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that”

Having people like Mayor Bloomberg to back President Obama up, Obama would be able to hold on to his defense and continue to give this well-reasoned argument to thwart the hatred of Islamophobes across the country as reporters asked him for more remarks on what he said, right?

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about. And I think it’s very important, as difficult as some of these issues are, that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.”

President Obama’s position at that moment morphed into, in principle, this country should allow the Islamic center to be built, but, I do not know specifically if in this case building a mosque is a wise idea or not. The idea that “commitments to religious freedom must be unshakeable” now appeared to be shakeable if it could be proven one is making unwise decisions related to the exercising of that religious freedom.

How would this “backtracking” play in the conservative media echo chamber that has made the Obama Administration yield to any and every message born out of pig-headed phobia?

Guests and show hosts promoted this idea on Sunday that, if the cultural center would not be promoting interfaith dialogue (a standard that most Christian or Jewish institutions never have to adhere to), then there’s no way the construction of a mosque should be supported.

Republican Congressman Peter King said on “State of the Union with Candy Crowley” on August 15th, “I think the president, by the way, is trying to have it both ways, because I don’t know of anyone who was saying that Muslims do not have the right to practice their religion, but with rights go responsibilities, and that’s the part of it the president did not comment on.

Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island said “Fox News Sunday” with Bret Baier, “the president, I think, is right to point out that our traditions do embrace tolerance for religions, all religions” but went on to say the “issue is whether the operation — this facility is really one that is designed to provide interfaith communication, dialogue, to not in some way try to repeal the reality of 9/11, which was an attack by fanatical Muslims against the United States, but to try to find those common ground between all the religious communities.”

On the same show, Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee declared this issue an “election issue” and said what was said is indicative of “the lack of connection between the administration and Washington and folks inside the Beltway and mainstream America. And I think this is what aggravates people so much.”

ABC’s This Week host Christiane Amanpour and NPR senior news analyst Cokie Roberts accused Obama of “walking back” from statements he made in his speech. And, Liz Cheney was quoted by Mike Allen of Politico, “I guess President Obama was for the mosque before he was against it.”

Tunku Varadarajan wrote on The Daily Beast, “At first sight, this may seem but a minor alteration in tone, or nuance. But in political terms, it is tectonic, reducing Obama in stature from a brave man, standing tall against the forces of intolerance, to a picayune, insecure trimmer who wishes to be all things to all people, a man who is so unsure of his own principles that he will seek to reinterpret words, just a day after he uttered them.”

Varadarajan and the aforementioned congressmen are right to talk about how this was never a question of the mosque’s right to be built–at least rhetorically speaking. Amanpour’s comments on Obama “walking back” his comments directly cited a poll of Americans indicating more than sixty percent recognize the right to build the center but, in another poll, more than sixty percent think it’s wrong to build the mosque. So, the tension does not seem to be coming from people who dispute whether Muslims have a right to religious freedom or not–unless you consider this gubernatorial candidate.

Unless you consider the people protesting the building of one on Staten Island. Unless you consider the people protesting the building of one in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Unless you consider the people protesting the construction of one in Sheboygan County in Wisconsin. Unless you consider the people protesting the building of one in Temecula, California. Unless you consider the people detailed in Stephen Salisbury’s article “Extremism at Ground Zero (Again)“.

Contrary to politicians and pundits, this is about the right to religious freedom. From coast to coast Americans do not want Muslims to have private property rights because they have Islamophobia that there is no way of knowing how the mosque will be funded, who will be praying and worshipping at the mosque and what activities/agenda the mosque might support. The only way to alleviate that fear is through leadership and speeches to the American public similar to the one Obama delivered Friday night and the one Mayor Bloomberg delievered over a week ago.

This was a teaching moment, an opportunity to stay firm and not back down, a chance to comment on the specific project itself and in doing so defend other projects around the country that have been targeted by Islamophobia in recent years. It would not have been difficult to comment on the “wisdom” in a politically savvy way; all President Obama had to do is watch Jon Stewart take on Ground Zero mosque critics last week in a segment that properly ridiculed opposition to the building of the mosque.

But, it appears, as with countless issues, Obama has little moral fortitude to stand up for what’s right. He offers empty platitudes until reverberations or echoes drown out his platitudes and then he stops commenting. He then proceeds to engage in obvious wordsmithing to obfuscate his stance and refuses to give further comments on the problem or issue.

President Obama should have just remained silent on the mosque; if he wasn’t going to stand up for the mosque project itself, he should have known he would only be empowering FOX News blowhards and frenzied Americans who fear “in 20 years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the president by themselves” so they can carry out their planned jihad on America.

But, given the mostly forgotten fact that he removed two Muslim women at a campaign rally who were going to be sitting behind the podium because his campaign didn’t want women with headscarves to appear with Obama in photographs or on television, we should all not be surprised at Obama’s spinelessness.

Reverend Billy Talent and the Church of Life After Shopping protest the Correction Centers of America building, a commercial immigrant detention center (privately-owned prison) | Photo by Reverend Billy and the Church of Life After Shopping

Reports reveal that private prison corporations with interests and operations in Arizona stand to benefit and profit greatly as a result of immigration laws like SB1070. And, that isn’t altogether surprising because these same reports are indicating these corporations played a role in influencing the law, which is proof that border politics and the private prison businesses are tied.

Progressive news magazine, In These Times, reported on State Sen. Russell Pearce’s (R-Mesa) involvement in the passage of the Arizona immigration law and his ties to private prison corporations. The report explains how Pearce submitted a version of the legislation to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),” an organization which he and 35 other Arizona legislators belong,” a “full month and a half before SB1070 was introduced to the Arizona Senate and nearly two months before its counterpart was first read in the House.”

A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, ALEC bills itself as “the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators” and as a public-private legislative partnership. As such, ALEC claims as members more than 2,000 state lawmakers (one-third of the nation’s total legislators) and more than 200 corporations and special-interest groups.

The organization’s current corporate roster includes the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA, the nation’s largest private jailer), the Geo Group (the nation’s second largest private jailer), Sodexho Marriott (the nation’s leading food services provider to private correctional institutions), the Koch Foundation, Exxon Mobil, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Boeing, Wal-Mart and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, to name just a few.

Rachel Maddow covered ties between private prison corporations in Arizona and Arizona’s lawmakers on her show Thursday night:

“Last year, Arizona state officials moved legislation to try to privatize the whole state prison system. Arizona planned to “seek bids from private companies for nine of the state’s 10 prison complexes.” It was the first effort by a state to put its entire prison system under private control.

Great news for the private prison companies, right? Great news, in particular, for Corrections Corporation of America, which is the single largest private prison company in the country. CCA already runs six detention facilities in Arizona. They hold prisoners from other states at their facilities in Arizona. They also hold the federal contract to hold federal detainees in the state.

So, you know what would be awesome for a company like that? You know what would be awesome? What would be really awesome for the shareholders and everybody if the state of Arizona started producing a whole lot more federal detainees — people detain on federal issues, federal issues like, I don’t know, say, immigration violations.

Imagine the boon to the private for-profit prison company that has the contract to house federal detainees in Arizona, if Arizona came up with a whacky plan to arrest a lot more people for suspected immigration violations. Imagine how awesome a law like S.B. 1070 would be for an industry like the for-profit private prison industry in Arizona. Sure, it’s an industry with an incredibly awful record in Arizona, but there is money to be made here — and it turns out that that industry, particularly, Corrections Corporation of America, which stands to benefit the most, that industry and that company in Arizona, they’re really well connected”"

Just as one might say there’s no racial profiling in the Arizona immigration law, CCA is maintaining they have no plans to “house” any illegal immigrants in Arizona. Morgan Loew, a reporter with CBS’s local Phoenix affiliate, KPHO, whose reporting was a source in Maddow’s report, addressed this claim:

“Maricopa County, the Phoenix Police Department, we don’t deport illegal immigrants. When someone’s picked up on the side of the road or for a crime, they’re taken to the jail. At that point, their immigration status is determined. If they’re an illegal immigrant, they’re reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Then their taken to one of these private prisons, Corrections Corporation of America.

So, you’d have to do the math. But if you increased the number of people who are picked up, illegal immigrants, increase the number that are sent over to ICE, you’re likely going to increase the number that companies like Corrections Corporation of America are going to be housing.

Right now, they’re — I think they’re charging ICE here in Arizona about $11 million a month to have about a 5 percent vacancy rate that they keep sort of for big busts or that kind of thing. So, obviously, that number would go up and they would have to make extra accommodations to handle more illegal immigrants.”

A watchdog report by Philip Mattera and Mafruza Khan of the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First and Stephen Nathan of Prison Privatisation Report International, showed CCA’s dependence on federal contracts tied to the incarceration of immigrants:

CCA got its first contract from the federal government and has continued to depend on its friends in Washington, DC. In 2002 the three federal agencies with correctional and detention responsibilitiesthe Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the United States Marshals Service (USMS) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now a branch of the Department of Homeland Security and known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE)accounted for about 32 percent of CCA’s total revenues”

“the explosion of the so-called “criminal alien” population in the wake of the 1996 Immigration Reform Act. The federal government’s campaign to lock up non-citizens for a wide range of crimes, including relatively minor ones such as attempting to re-enter the country without proper documents, generated a huge new demand for prison beds. The BOP addressed the problem by calling on private contractors to help meet its “criminal alien requirements,” or CAR. As a result of the CAR-I solicitation process, CCA got two contracts in 2000 that allowed it to fill its long-empty speculatively built prison in California City, California, and its Cibola

County Correctional Center in New Mexico. Together, these deals are estimated to be worth $760 million to CCA over ten years. In 2002 CCA was rewarded again with a $103 million CAR contract to fill its struggling McRae Correctional Facility in Georgia. Analyst Judith Greene has referred to these CAR contracts as a “virtual bailout” for CCA.

The same watchdog report hints at the sentiment that may be shared by many in CCA thanks to the Arizona immigration law. A 10-K filing from CCA from nearly a decade ago reads:

“We believe that recently proposed initiatives by the federal government in connection with homeland security should cause the demand for prison beds, including privately managed beds, to increase. The proposed funding [for homeland security] is intended to support the agencies’ efforts to prevent illegal entry into the United States and target persons that are a threat to homeland security. We believe that these efforts will likely result in more incarceration and detention, particularly of illegal immigrants, and increased supervision of persons on probation and parole

Those who hear Marg Baker talk about supporting Japanese internment camps for illegal immigrants should not think she is that crazy. She is merely expressing the solution to the sentiment of fear that the businessmen working in the private prison industry in Arizona wish to implement.

Her notion is totalitarian but so is the notion that you can incarcerate and control a prison population and make money. And the people of Arizona should fear the existence of an industry that depends on “criminals” to succeed because if crime isn’t high then the industry will always work to find a way to “criminalize” a population for profit.

Robert Gibbs in studio interview by studio08denver

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs became the spokesperson for Obama Administration contempt toward the left on Tuesday. The display of contempt came in the midst of a nearly 70 percent shift in Wall Street executive donations from Democratic candidates to Republican candidates ahead of the November mid-term elections.

On Tuesday, The Hill published an interview with Gibbs, who said what Obama has done and is doing would never be “good enough” for the “professional left.” Gibbs attacked the left for comparing Obama to George W. Bush, suggested, “these people ought to be drug tested” and said they “wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.” He also said they would only “be satisfied when [America has] Canadian healthcare and [America has] eliminated the Pentagon.”

Gibbs’ remark revealed a lot about what members of the Obama Administration think of the role of debate and citizen participation in government. And, the implicit apology Gibbs made in the aftermath of his “inartful” comments revealed even more about an administration that believes progressives should take marching orders from this administration or else.

“So we should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies,” he said, and work together “because we’ve come too far to turn back now,” Gibbs said after mentioning he watches a lot of cable television, as if to excuse his remark.

While circumstantial, the best evidence for why Gibbs would feel like uttering the aforementioned remarks is the shift of money from Wall Street to Republicans ahead of the election. Obama was the candidate of Wall Street in the 2008 Election garnering nearly $8 million in campaign contributions from securities and investment industries (nearly double what Republican presidential candidate John McCain garnered). The Democrats earned 57 percent of campaign contributions from securities and investment industries.

The situation compels the Obama Administration especially White House press secretary Gibbs to whip the left and the sections that are most listened to by voters into line not only because money from business interests needs to swing back the other way but because disappointed and disillusioned voters will likely stay home, not donate to Democratic Party campaigns, not make phone calls, and refuse to go door-to-door canvassing prior to Election Day if they do not fall in line.

“Professional Left” Attacked by Gibbs Responds

White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton revealed later on Tuesday that what Gibbs really meant when he said “professional left”–a concocted term that you’d think you’d hear Glenn Beck utter that has scarcely been spoken prior to Gibbs’ remarks–was directed at liberal pundits. So, how did the attacked liberal pundits respond?

Ed Schultz, host of The Ed Schultz Show on MSNBC, stated

Gibbs thinks progressive are just a bunch of whiners because they expect a democratic president to act like a democrat. Is that it? Bottom line, the White House, I don’t think they know who their friends and allies are at this point. Gibbs tried to walk back his comments today saying that he spoke in artfully and blaming his tirade on watching too much cable? Hold it right there. When was the last time you saw him on cable? Day in and day out they ought to be on cable in the sound chamber of America winning the cultural war and pushing the progressive agenda.

They don’t do that. That’s what I have a problem with. And the other thing is about them being like the Bush administration. I did say on this program last week that their sell job on this cleaned up oil issue in the gulf rivals that of the Bush administration. It does, because the scientific community is saying one thing and the pr community is saying something else, and I think the White House is buying into it

The following day Ed Schultz had Rep. Alan Grayson on the show to talk about how he thinks Gibbs should be fired. Schultz said this just before Grayson came on

Really? You mean there’s no other progressive candidate out there anywhere? Barack Obama just — it’s just — I mean, he’s the only one that could hold progressive values and win an election? So the base is just stuck? We just have to do whatever the White House wants to do and we really can’t make any demands without being criticized?

The Democrats, well, you better hope Gibbs is right. He took all the air right out of the news cycle on a day that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats over in the House saved 300,000 jobs.

Do you think that’s a good story?

I can’t believe how tone deaf the White House is to the very people who busted their fanny to get these folks in office. I’m also sick and tired of all these shots coming at cable news.

In a “Special Comment” that should be viewed in its entirety, Olbermann objected to the critique of the “professional left” when the “professional right” are the pundits who should be criticized:

“It is profound and noble to see this President take so seriously the premise that he is just as much “President Of People Who Didn’t Vote For Him,” as of “People Who Did.” But this is ridiculous. The President has shown a willingness to give the Professional Right not just “seats at the table” as we try to restore this country to where it was before Bush and Cheney got a hold of it, not just to give it half the seats at the table, but often — far too often –to give it all the seats, the table, and the damn carpet”

“Sir. You need to get past the premise that the Left differs from the Right in terms of ideology. In this America, they differ in terms of the hard-wiring of the brain. The Right wants not leadership — it wants lockstep. The Right wants not nuanced thought from its adherents — it wants salutes and sworn fealty. The Right wants not critical analysis from its media — it wants propaganda.

If, Mr. President, you have fallen into the trap of equating “The Professional Left” and “The Professional Right” of the false equivalency of msnbc and Fox News — you are going to spend the rest of the time in the White House curled up in a churlish ball in the corner wondering what happened to your encore.

If indeed I am part of the “Professional Left” I am here to applaud good policy and good leadership and good statesmanship, and to boo bad policy and bad leadership and bad statesmanship. I’m sorry, Sir; I’m sorry, Mr. Gibbs, we are not the Right. We think over here. And we fight for what we believe in.

At first thought, one should be surprised that liberal pundits would be attacked. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) pointed out on MSNBC’s Hardball the day after that “Rachel Maddow did a segment, almost her entire show to this question about how much they’ve accomplished. It was so — it was so good from the White House perspective. They used it at fundraisers later on that week, you know, to show the video.” Perhaps, the move is meant to push MSNBC to run more segments that toe the party line.

Paul Begala, who has worked in the White House and come under fire for being an outspoken liberal pundit, said “there’s a lot of merit” to what Gibbs said “frankly.” Interestingly, he noted when he was working for Clinton and “the left was on [Clinton's] butt too,” Clinton gave an interview to Rolling Stone journalist Bill Glider and attacked the “knee-jerk liberal press” and sounded like Nixon or Reagan.

Chuck Todd, in the same segment featuring Rep. Weiner, said “This White House thought that the liberal blogosphere was going to be like the conservative talk radio for Bush and was just always going to support whatever they did.” Indeed, much of the contempt from the Obama Administration has been directed toward the Internet left. For example, in October of 2009:

An unnamed White House adviser had some choice words for liberal bloggers who’ve criticized the administration for failing to make progress on gay rights issues, CNBC’s John Harwood said yesterday, and some are pretty upset about it.

When asked about “conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven’t,” Harwood said that “[t]he White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe…And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.”

Rachel Maddow, host of the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, brought it up during an interview with New York Times columnist Gail Collins on Wednesday. She said the story was good as a “personality story” and proceeded to ask something more “substantive”–”What will the Democrats do to actually get people to vote for them in November?”

Collins responded, “It will be the getting out the vote trick that will work. I’m not sure you can get the Republicans very excited about going out to vote for their people either. In the end, it’s going to come down to pure fear. Whichever party can convince the public that the other party is the more terrifying and horrible is the on that wins.” [emphasis added]

Finally, Dylan Ratigan, who appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe the morning that reaction to Gibbs began to unfold among the left and dismissed Obama as a “little boy” in the eyes of Wall Street who “just bends over” rather than stand up to the financial industry, had Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com on his show.

Greenwald, who posted a response to Gibbs on Salon.com that proves there is reason to compare Obama to Bush, said in the interview, “It’s not exactly uncommon for White Houses to become very insular and adopt these siege bunker mentalities at all times where they think any critics are irrational and outrageous and they deserve nothing but gratitude and thanks from the public. They don’t usually admit it quite as candidly as Robert Gibbs did. At least they haven’t since Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew but this is a common sentiment for White Houses to have.”

Ratigan asked Hamsher, “Is there a calculation here, and the calculation is that the lefties are going to vote for him anyway? So you know what? Screw them. We don’t need to do what they tell us. We don’t need to accommodate what they want. We don’t have to listen to their nonsense because what are they going to do, vote for Sarah Palin?

To which Hamsher said, “If that’s what he’s thinking, then it’s clear why Robert Gibbs is not working in the political strategy department. If you look at what happened in Connecticut last night, only 20% of the Democratic electorate turned out in the primary. That’s down from 43% for the primary in 2006. That’s disastrous numbers fro Democrats and we’re seeing the fruition of Rahm Emanuel’s strategy of trying to corral corporate donations for Democrats by essentially becoming Republican, and it has disappointed the electorate.”

An Odd Manifestation of a Midterm Election Message That Voters Should Fear Republicans?

Sheldon Wolin illuminates in Democracy, Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism how more
and more the President of the United States functions as a CEO and the Congress shareholders whose chief concern is that the country head in the right direction. And those shareholders who appear to influence the “independent supervisory power to which the CEO is theoretically responsible” are at the mercy of investors who decide whether they are worth keeping as a shareholder of this country or not.

The flight of cash from campaign coffers the Democratic Party regularly dips into to Republican Party campaign coffers along with the enthusiasm gap among Democratic voters is huge.

When the White House thinks about what would trigger Democratic voters to be unenthusiastic, they likely assume voters are either watching cable television and getting the wrong idea or are reading Internet blogs and getting the wrong idea.

It’s times like these that the Democratic Party has to remind the left what their role is, a role they most often have no problem playing; that’s the role of political slave, civic adolescent, foot soldier, etc.

The public knows that the Democrats chief ally in winning elections in recent history has been now former president George W. Bush. He and other Republicans who would continue Bush policies have been the boogeymen that remind liberals to get to the polls. Democrats are already on the campaign trail reminding progressives of what they will surely get if Democrats do not get re-elected and maintain control of the House and Senate.

And, the harsh reality is that while the Republican Party’s base of rabid free market-loving minions can vote Republican or if they check their bigotry at the door on election days, they can vote for conservative or centrist Democrats who will still deliver the agenda they want to see implemented. On the other hand, poor, minorities, working class, anti-corporatists, environmentalists, and anti-imperialists have no alternative. The Democratic Party knows this, the center left to far left understands this, and together the two have pursued a love-hate relationship for the last century working together to kill alternatives to the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Much energy is expended in service of the notion that if better Democrats are elected the country will make necessary sociopolitical advancements and will address many of the dire situations that have unfolded over the past decade and continue to unfold. The uncomfortable truth is that, those dedicated to electing better Democrats, are met with opposition from a president they voted into office. Obama supported Blanche Lincoln and opposed the candidate labor interests had been funding to defeat Lincoln. And, most recently, Obama supported Michael Bennet, who defeated Andrew Romanoff, the candidate who appeared to be a progressive candidate.

Only in instances where Obama and Democrats are speaking to a progressive audience do they promote the idea that progressives should “keep up the good fight” and hold the administration accountable. When progressives actually follow what Obama has said, they get called “fucking retarded.”

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told a closed door meeting of top liberal leaders in the fall of 2009 that they were “fucking stupid” to be running ads pressuring Blue Dogs and centrist Dem Senators to back the public option.

Openly gay Representative Barney Frank accused those who organized a National Equality March of doing something “useless.” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) said Democrats have pushed their agenda too far left and have alienated voters when Republican Senator Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. And, Obama recently spoke at the National Urban League’s Centennial Conference and told the civil rights organization and treated the attendees as if their opposition to his education agenda meant they were “status quo people.”

Those who organize independently outside of the two-party system are regarded, to use language Rep. Ike Skelton, a Democrat, used when Bush was president during a hearing when peace activists were present, as “assholes.” And, the Democratic Party hopes outspoken citizens will demobilize themselves when there are no electoral campaigns to support and they hope many will not ponder matters that have been settled or demarcated as off-limits to citizen influence.

This cannot be a message that wins in November–that is, if it continues to translate into the conversation that was between liberal pundits and guests in the aftermath. The public actually does harbor a lot of distrust toward the cable news. The Pew Research Center for People & the Press published a survey report not long ago showing that from 1985 to 2009 public the amount of Americans who think “news organizations generally get the facts straight” has plummeted from 55% to 29%. And, the report noted that Republicans continue to be highly critical of the news and the growth in negative attitudes stems from “increasingly unfavorable evaluations by Democrats.”

So, campaign messages where Obama and Democrats talk of disconnect between cable news and the American people could work especially if Democrats project views like they did in the 2008 Election. If Democrats think what’s being talked about is Fox News, it works. And, if Republicans think what’s being talked about is the “liberal media,” it works. Only if they are forced to explain what they mean when they attack cable news and get down to specifics will the Democrats be handicapping campaigns severely.

Whatever Democrats do from now until November to “win,” the chief concern among citizens should not be how they can best be a loyalist to the Democrats. Rather, they should think hard about what Gail Collins said about how the party that wins will win because they made voters fear the other political party more.

Honestly, is that really a political system citizens should support–one where they have to decide not who to support but who is the least worth supporting each election year?

A good amount of documentation on the involvement of psychologists in the torture and abuse of detainees or “terror suspects.” And, a new study provides even more revelations on the involvement of physicians making it increasingly clear that medical professionals put limits on ethical standards they were expected to follow in order to help the CIA interrogate detainees.

The study, titled “Roles of CIA Physicians in Enhanced Interrogation and Torture of Detainees,” authored by Leonard S. Rubinstein, the president of Physicians for Human Rights, and Brigadier General (ret.) Stephen N. Xenakis, a former Army psychiatrists (who is now with the Center for Public Health and Human Rights), utilizes a previously secret document from 2004 and lays out the “guidelines for detainee interrogation” that physicians, psychologists, and other health care professionals developed and followed so they could serve the CIA.

Guidelines indicate the doctors, who were working for the CIA’s Office of Medical Services, conducted medical evaluations [experimentations] on detainees “before and during interrogations” and waterboarding “required the presence of a physician.”

Physicians documented the effects of “enhanced interrogation techniques” [torture] like waterboarding and decided waterboarding “created risks of drowning, hypothermia, aspiration pneumonia, or laryngospasm.” They ignored “clinical experience/research” and assured lawyers “there was no ‘medical reason’ to believe that waterboarding [would] lead to physical pain.”

It was established that “cramped confinement could result in deep vein thrombosis” and death could result from “lengthy exposure to cold water.” And, the physicians, psychologists, and other health care professionals working for the CIA developed “limitations” so that techniques like waterboarding, cramped confinement, sensory deprivation, stress positions, etc could be used on detainees.

Limitations included: “exposure to specified temperature either up to time of hypothermia would develop or on evidence of hypothermia,” dietary restrictions up to “body weight loss of 10% or evidence of significant malnutrition,” “exposure to noise just under decibel levels associated with hearing loss,” up to 48 hours of exposure to stress positions “provided hands were no higher than the head” of a detainee, and no more than eight consecutive hours or eighteen hours per day of “confinement in a box.”

Much of this took place after 2003, after a CIA Inspector General investigation of “enhanced interrogation techniques” [torture], OMS physicians were asked to provide “opinions to the agency and lawyers on whether techniques used would be expected to cause severe pain or suffering and thus constitute torture.” Slowly, OMS physicians’ work for the CIA transformed into work, which violated “ethical standards,” prohibiting physicians from using “medical skills to facilitate torture or be present when torture is taking place.”

The physicians consulted directly with Department of Justice lawyers and were asked to provide legal cover by supporting “legal decisions” that “interrogators who applied enhanced interrogation techniques neither inflicted sever mental or physical pain or anguish and thus did not commit torture.” For techniques like sleep deprivation, they claimed the use thereof “could not lead to profound disruption in the detainees’ senses or personality (the legal definition of psychological torture).”

As suggested in the opening paragraph, it has been evident that physicians and psychologists have been involved in torture for some time, especially since Wikileaks leaked the Guantanamo Standard Operating Procedures Manual in November 2007.

The manual indicated that, “incoming prisoners were to be held in near-isolation for the first [four] weeks to foster dependence on interrogators and `enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in the interrogation process.’” It outlines how isolation was to be used on detainees, a technique Physicians for Human Rights said can lead to symptoms of “`bewilderment, anxiety, frustration, dejection, boredom, obsessive thoughts or ruminations, depression, and, in some cases, hallucination’” and, if prolonged, could result in “increased stress, abnormal neuroendocrine function, changes in blood pressure and inflammatory stress responses.”

Then, it was known those involved understood how they could be prosecuted for violating international law. As an April 16, 2003, memo from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld explained

“Caution: the use of isolation as an interrogation technique requires detailed implementation instructions, including specific guidelines regarding the length of isolation, medical and psychological review, and approvals for extension of the length of by the appropriate level in the chain of command. This technique is not know to have been generally used for interrogation purposes for longer than 30 days. Those nations that believe that detainees are subject to POW protections may view use of this technique as inconsistent with the requirements of Geneva III, Article 13 which provides that POWs must be protected against acts of intimidation; Article 14 which provides that POWs are entitled to respect for their person; Article 34 which prohibits coercion and Article 126 which ensures access and basic standards of treatment. Although the provisions of Geneva are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants, consideration should be given to these views prior to application of this technique.”

The report is yet another indication of the need for more investigation, accountability, and reform from the Obama Administration. Yet, as demonstrated by a comprehensive report (”Establishing the New Normal“) from the ACLU, the Obama Administration has avoided its obligation to accountability for torture and chosen to follow the dangerous mantra of “looking forward, not back,” a false choice because, as the ACLU states in the report:

“a strong democracy rests not on the goodwill of its leaders but on the impartial enforcement of laws. Sanctioning impunity for government officials who authorized torture sends a problematic message to the world, invites abuses by future administrations, and further undermines the rule of law that is the basis of any democracy.”