Psyche, Science, and Society

Renounce Hillary Clinton’s racism

I feel obligated to express my disgust, to put it mildly, with the racist turn in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Not being sure of the best way to do so, I’ve decided to copy and post this entry from Talking Points Memo:

Pretty Black and White

TPM Reader AB is having a hard time reconciling Hillary’s remarks on Obama’s support among working class whites:

It seems to me that every progressive voice in this country should be outraged - jumping up and down - shouting in print and word - to repudiate Hillary Clinton’s remarks that Obama “is having trouble winning over blue collar “white” voters… “white Americans”…It is a disgraceful, shameful tactic to justify her own non-candidacy. This is a remark I would expect from a politician from Mississippi or Louisiana - not from our New York State senator… I am outraged, I am deeply embarrassed that my children have heard this reported on the news…and I regret that have I ever gave her one hard earned nickel.

All the while she touts the glass ceiling as a woman but when her chips are down, the racism springs forth fully formed.

AB is right. Maybe it’s general campaign fatigue, or the sense that the race is all but over now, but a month ago her remarks would have been a huge story, the dominant political story of the day.

The political press spent weeks trying to divine whether the Clinton camp was really attempting to cast Obama as the black candidate, a favorite son candidate of the African American community. The Clinton camp vehemently denied it then and even as recently as a few days ago Bill Clinton claimed it was the Obama camp playing the race card against him.

Race has been the subtext of much of Hillary’s argument for her own electability. But now she’s thrown it right out there in the open: Obama can’t win because he’s black. Vote for me instead.

You don’t have to believe that Hillary’s a racist (I don’t) to conclude that a combination of the rigors of the campaign trail and her own powerful ambitions have clouded her judgment and curdled her spirit. It has certainly soured what had been a historic relationship between the Clintons and the black community.

Hers is not an appeal we’d tolerate from a Republican candidate, nor should we from a Democrat, no matter how sterling her progressive credentials might otherwise be.

There’s been a lot of talk about the damage Hillary will do to the party by staying in the race this long. Perhaps she should consider the damage she’s doing to herself.

–David Kurtz

The one thing I would disagree with is the formulaic statement that David doesn’t think Hillary is racist:

You don’t have to believe that Hillary’s a racist (I don’t)…

After all, we psychologists, and any thinking person living in this society knows that, at some visceral level, we all harbor racist impulses. So, if the term “bot a racist” is to mean anything, it should mean one who fights against those impulses. Someone who chooses, for expediency, to fan these impulese, is a “racist.” After all, the same argument was made about George Wallace, that he wasn’t a “racist,” but only used racist themes for political expediency. And we know that Strom Thurmond had a complex relationship with race, with his mistress and child and all. To accept these arguments is to reduce “racism” to a personal predilection, and ignore the social and systemic aspects that make it so pernicious. Whether Hillary Clinton dislikes black people, or simply chooses to increase hatred of them for her benefit is irrelevant, except to biographers. If she chooses to unleash racism, she’s a racist.

So I would argue that anyone who deliberately appeals to racism for personal benefit, especially in a way likely to increase racial animosity, is a racist. We should not let Clinton, either one of them, off so easy. And we should should shout it from the rooftops. To do any less is to become complicit in the inexcusable.

4 comments May 8th, 2008

Marjorie Cohn testimony to Congress on legal responsibility for torture

Marjorie Cohn, President of the national Lawyers guild, testified to Congress on Tuesday regarding legal culpability for US torture by commanders and by the torture lawyers:

Testimony of Marjorie Cohn

“From the Department of Justice to Guantánamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules”

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
House Judiciary Committee

May 6, 2008

What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. That’s Latin for “higher law” or “compelling law.” This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition.

The United States has always prohibited torture in our Constitution, laws, executive statements, judicial decisions, and treaties. When the U.S. ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture.”

Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions.

The US War Crimes Act, and 18 USC sections 818 and 3231, punish torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment.

The Torture Statute criminalizes the commission, attempt, or conspiracy to commit torture outside the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws and the President the duty to enforce them. Yet Bush, relying on memos by lawyers including John Yoo, announced the Geneva Conventions did not apply to alleged Taliban and Al Qaeda members. But torture and inhumane treatment are never allowed under our laws.

Justice Department lawyers wrote memos at the request of Bush officials to insulate them from prosecution for torture. In memos dated August 1, 2002 and March 18, 2003, John Yoo wrote the DOJ would not enforce U.S. laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.

The maiming statute makes it a crime for someone “with the intent to torture, maim, or disfigure” to “cut, bite, or slit the nose, ear or lip, or cut out or disable the tongue, or put out or destroy an eye, or cut off or disable a limb, or any member of another person” or throw or pour upon another person any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance.

Yoo said, “just because the statute says — that doesn’t mean you have to do it.” In a debate with Notre Dame Professor Doug Cassell, Yoo said there is no treaty that prohibits the President from torturing someone by crushing the testicles of the person’s child. It depends on the President’s motive, Yoo said, notwithstanding the absolute prohibition on torture.

Yoo twisted the law and redefined torture much more narrowly than the Torture Convention and the Torture Statute. Under Yoo’s definition, you have to nearly kill the person to constitute torture.

Yoo wrote that self-defense or necessity could be defenses to war crimes prosecutions, notwithstanding the Torture Convention’s absolute prohibition against torture in all circumstances.

After the August 1, 2002 memo was made public, the DOJ knew it was indefensible. It was withdrawn as of June 1, 2004, and a new opinion, dated December 30, 2004, specifically rejected Yoo’s definition of torture, and admitted that a defendant’s motives to protect national security won’t shield him from prosecution. The rescission of the prior memo is an admission by the DOJ that the legal reasoning was wrong. But for the 22 months it was in effect, it sanctioned and caused the torture of myriad prisoners.

Yoo and other DOJ lawyers were part of a common plan to violate U.S. and international laws outlawing torture. It was reasonably foreseeable their advice would result in great physical or mental harm or death to many detainees. Indeed, more than 100 have died, many from torture. Yoo admitted recently he knew interrogators would take action based on what he advised.

Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft met in the White House and micromanaged the torture by approving specific torture techniques such as waterboarding. Bush admitted he knew and approved of their actions.

They are all liable under the War Crimes Act and the Torture Statute. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, commanders, all the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief, are liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them, and they did nothing to stop or prevent it. The Bush officials ordered the torture after seeking legal cover from their lawyers.

The President can no more order the commission of torture than he can order the commission of genocide, or establish a system of slavery, or wage a war of aggression.

A Select Committee of Congress should launch an immediate and thorough investigation of the circumstances under which torture was authorized and rationalized. The high officials of our government, and the lawyers who advised them, should be investigated and prosecuted by a Special Prosecutor, independent of the Justice Department, for their roles in misusing the rule of law and legal analysis to justify torture and other crimes in flagrant violation of our laws.

For the complete testimony, see C-Span Archives.

*****

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law.”

Add comment May 8th, 2008

Reingold on secret laws and legal opinions

Senator Russ Feingold, the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act, has an LA Times op-ed on the dangers posed by today’s secret laws and legal opinions, such as the long-secret Yoo torture memos. We are not a nation of laws if we don’t know the laws whereby our rulers are acting.

Government in secret
The Yoo memo is just one example of Bush’s hidden laws

By Russ Feingold
May 8, 2008

The Bush administration recently announced it will allow select members of Congress to read Justice Department legal opinions about the CIA’s controversial detainee interrogation program that have been hidden from Congress until now. But as the administration allows a glimpse of this secret law — and it is law — we are left wondering what other laws it is still keeping under lock and key.

It’s a given in our democracy that laws should be a matter of public record. But the law in this country includes not just statutes and regulations, which the public can readily access. It also includes binding legal interpretations made by courts and the executive branch. These interpretations are increasingly being withheld from the public and Congress.

Perhaps the most notorious example is the recently released 2003 Justice Department memorandum on torture written by John Yoo. The memorandum was, for a nine-month period in 2003, the law that the administration followed when it came to matters of torture. And that law was essentially a declaration that the administration could ignore the laws passed by Congress.

The content of the memo was deeply troubling, but just as troubling was the fact that this legal opinion was classified and its content kept secret for years. As we now know, the memo should never have been classified because it contains no information that could compromise national security if released. In a Senate hearing that I chaired April 30, the top official in charge of classification policy from 2002 to 2007 testified that classification of this memo showed “either profound ignorance of or deep contempt for” the standards for classification.

The memos on torture policy that have been released or leaked hint at a much bigger body of law about which we know virtually nothing. The Yoo memo was filled with references to other Justice Department memos that have yet to see the light of day, on subjects including the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens without congressional authorization and the government’s ability to bypass the 4th Amendment in domestic military operations.

Another body of secret law involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 1978, Congress created the special FISA court to review the government’s requests for wiretaps in intelligence investigations, which is — and should be — done behind closed doors. But with changes in technology and with this administration’s efforts to expand its surveillance powers, the court today is doing more than just reviewing warrant applications. It is issuing important interpretations of FISA that have effectively made new law.

These interpretations deeply affect Americans’ privacy rights, and yet Americans don’t know about them because they are not allowed to see them. Very few members of Congress have been allowed to see them either. When the Senate recently approved some broad and controversial changes to FISA, almost none of the senators voting on the bill could know what the law currently is.

The code of secrecy also extends to yet another body of law: changes to executive orders. The administration takes the position that a president can “waive” or “modify” a published executive order without any public notice — simply by not following it. It’s every president’s prerogative to change an executive order, but doing so without public notice works a secret change in the law. And, because the published order stays on the books, Congress and the public have no idea that it’s no longer in effect. We don’t know how many of these covert changes have been made by this administration or, for that matter, by past administrations.

No one questions the need for the government to protect information about intelligence sources and methods, troop movements or weapons systems. But there’s a big difference between withholding information about military or intelligence operations from the public and withholding the law that governs the executive branch. Keeping the law secret doesn’t enhance national security, but it does give the government free rein to operate without oversight or accountability. Even the congressional intelligence committees, which are supposed to oversee the intelligence community, have been denied access to some of these legal opinions.

Congress should pass legislation to require the administration to alert Congress when the law created by Justice Department opinions ignores or even violates the laws passed by Congress, and to require public notice when it is waiving or modifying a published executive order. Congress and the public shouldn’t have to wonder whether the executive branch is following the laws that are on the books or some other, secret law.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is a member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

Add comment May 8th, 2008

Senators call for investigation of involuntary drugging charges

[UPDATED: Corrected Sen. Hagel's party] Three key Senators — arl Levin (D-MI), Joe Biden (D-DE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — have issued a letter calling for the Defense department and CIA Inspectors General to investigate allegations of forced drugging of detainees reported by the Washington Post and CQ last month. [See my commentary here.] While this call is welcome, it is unfortunate that they do not call for the appointment of an Independent Prosecutor, as the ACLU has done, rather than an in-house investigation. After all, these claims have been known for years now, and the Inspectors General have had adequate time to act. We now need to get investigations out of the mainstream Executive branch.

further, whoever conducts an investigation needs to be pressured to issue a public report on their findings. Only by getting this information out in the clear light of day can the American public take steps to see that these abuses don’t continue. Secret investigations are unacceptable at this point.

Here is the text of the Senator’s letter:

April 24, 2008

The Honorable Claude M. Kicklighter

Department of Defense

400 Army Navy Drive

Arlington , VA 22202-4704

By Facsimile & U.S. Mail

Dear Inspector General Kicklighter:

We are deeply concerned about the allegations reported in the April 23rd Washington Post article entitled Detainees Allege Being Drugged, Questioned regarding the alleged use of drugs on detainees to facilitate interrogations. They are the most recent in a series of allegations relating to the abuse and mistreatment of detainees in United States custody. Although such conduct is prohibited by U.S. law and international treaties and inconsistent with our national values, some similar allegations have since been confirmed by public reports.

As with other types of abuse, the forced administration of mind-altering drugs to facilitate interrogation appears to have been authorized by the legal analysis of John Yoo, then a lawyer in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. His memorandum authorizing such abuse reportedly overturned a decades-old U.S. ban on the use of mind-altering drugs to facilitate interrogation. President Bush recently confirmed in an interview with ABC News that the Administration’s overall interrogation policy was discussed by Cabinet level national security officials, and that the President himself was aware of these discussions.

The allegations reported in the Washington Post article warrant a thorough investigation by the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. Investigation of alleged abuse and mistreatment of detainees is squarely within the purview of the Inspector General’s office.

Only by identifying and reforming policies and practices that violate United States law and international treaties and are inconsistent with our national values can we strengthen the international coalitions we need to fight terrorism, decrease the success of terrorists’ recruitment efforts, and restore America’s standing in the world. Thorough investigations are an important step in that process.

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Chairman

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Carl Levin

Chairman

Senate Armed Services Committee

Chuck Hagel

Senior Member

Senate Select Intelligence Committee

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

1 comment May 8th, 2008

Mildred Loving on the meaning of Loving v Virginia

Mildred Loving died May 2 at home in Virginia. Here is her statement prepared for delivery on June 12, 2007, the 4oth anniversary of Loving v Virginia. It was not that long ago that these ordinary heroes had to fight for the right to marry a partner of a different race. Gays and lesbians today are still fighting for the right to marry whom they choose:

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Add comment May 8th, 2008