Free drinks?!
I received an email today telling me of a class action settlement. It turns out that if I fill out a bunch of paperwork I may be able to claim some drink vouchers from Southwest Airlines. Apparently some heroic lawyers from Chicago are protecting me from the big bad airline that let my drink vouchers expire.
Is it worth anybodies time to fill out that much paperwork for a couple lousy drink vouchers? Who is benefitting from this settlement? Certainly not the downtrodden masses that the settlement supposedly protects. I think the primary motivation for this exercise in justice is that several million dollars will be transferred from Southwest Airlines to a couple Chicago lawyers. Does this benefit society in any way?
You can read the gory details on their website:
https://www.southwestvouchersettlement.com/Home/FAQ#faq12
I think that sometimes the public needs to be protected from powerful corporations and class action lawsuits can do that. But in this case I feel that lawyers are the ones who are mainly benefitting. Perhaps we need to reform the laws regarding class action lawsuits.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Friday, April 24, 2009
Missing from the Debate on Torture
Everyone is now talking about the torture policy of the Bush Administration. But there are a few points missing from the discussion that I think are important.
Justification: Cheney has tried to justify torture by saying it was necessary to prevent another 9/11. But America may have lost more lives as a result of torture than as a result of 9/11. It appears that many of these torture interrogations were focused, not on stopping attacks, but on justifying an invasion of Iraq. For example, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was tortured by US and Egyptian agents in 2002. Al-Libi told his interrogators that Iraq was training Al Qaeda how to use explosives and chemical weapons. Bush used this "intelligence" as a major part of his evidence against Saddam Hussein. In 2004 Al-Libi said he had simply told interrogators what they wanted to hear in order to escape the pain of torture. So the "evidence" obtained by torture was used to mislead us into a war that resulted in the loss of over 4200 American lives.
High Value Targets: The investigations are focusing on the torture of a handful of Al Qaeda leaders. But hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people were tortured in prisons around the world, many of them in secret locations. Many of these prisoners had little or nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Maher Arar, for example, was kidnapped by the CIA and tortured for a year in Syria because he worked at a software company with someone whose brother was once associated with Al Qaeda. Khalid El-Masri was kidnapped and tortured for five months because his name is similar to Khalid Al-Masri, a known Al Qaeda operative. Oops. Remember the famous photo of the guy with the pointy hood and the electrical wires attached to his genitals. His name is Satar Jabar and he was accused of carjacking. Many innocent people were turned in by bounty hunters eager to collect the fortune offered by the US military. These folks ended up at Gitmo, Abu Graib and other prisons and were tortured along with the enemy combatants.
Safe and Sane Torture: The clinical language used in the torture memos make the techniques sound a bit tame. But the torture itself was not carried out by lawyers. It was carried out by strong men in dark prisons. These were violent acts. The ACLU has documented dozens of cases where prisoners died of blunt force trauma, strangulation and other injuries sustained while in custody. Many prisoners are simply missing.
So when you hear a discussion of Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded 83 times, remember that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Bush and Cheney presided over a nightmarish campaign of kidnapping and torture that is staggering in scope. We must investigate this matter fully then prosecute any high level officials that committed these crimes.
Justification: Cheney has tried to justify torture by saying it was necessary to prevent another 9/11. But America may have lost more lives as a result of torture than as a result of 9/11. It appears that many of these torture interrogations were focused, not on stopping attacks, but on justifying an invasion of Iraq. For example, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was tortured by US and Egyptian agents in 2002. Al-Libi told his interrogators that Iraq was training Al Qaeda how to use explosives and chemical weapons. Bush used this "intelligence" as a major part of his evidence against Saddam Hussein. In 2004 Al-Libi said he had simply told interrogators what they wanted to hear in order to escape the pain of torture. So the "evidence" obtained by torture was used to mislead us into a war that resulted in the loss of over 4200 American lives.
High Value Targets: The investigations are focusing on the torture of a handful of Al Qaeda leaders. But hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people were tortured in prisons around the world, many of them in secret locations. Many of these prisoners had little or nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Maher Arar, for example, was kidnapped by the CIA and tortured for a year in Syria because he worked at a software company with someone whose brother was once associated with Al Qaeda. Khalid El-Masri was kidnapped and tortured for five months because his name is similar to Khalid Al-Masri, a known Al Qaeda operative. Oops. Remember the famous photo of the guy with the pointy hood and the electrical wires attached to his genitals. His name is Satar Jabar and he was accused of carjacking. Many innocent people were turned in by bounty hunters eager to collect the fortune offered by the US military. These folks ended up at Gitmo, Abu Graib and other prisons and were tortured along with the enemy combatants.
Safe and Sane Torture: The clinical language used in the torture memos make the techniques sound a bit tame. But the torture itself was not carried out by lawyers. It was carried out by strong men in dark prisons. These were violent acts. The ACLU has documented dozens of cases where prisoners died of blunt force trauma, strangulation and other injuries sustained while in custody. Many prisoners are simply missing.
So when you hear a discussion of Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded 83 times, remember that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Bush and Cheney presided over a nightmarish campaign of kidnapping and torture that is staggering in scope. We must investigate this matter fully then prosecute any high level officials that committed these crimes.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Bush Accuses Russia of "disproportionate response"
Another reason that Bush should be impeached is that America has lost its moral authority. Consider the new war between Georgia and Russia.
The roots of this conflict go way back. But on Thursday August 7th Georgia attacked South Ossetia, a breakaway province in the north of Georgia, causing heavy civilian casualties. These were mostly Russian citizens with Russian passports. Russia then responded by invading Georgia with a major military force including tanks, artillery and bombers.
On Sunday Bush accused Russia of a "disproportionate response". It may have been. But American no longer has the moral authority to accuse anyone of a "disproportionate response".
We invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Iraq never even attacked us. We accused them of having the ability to attack us sometime in the future. But that turned out to be a deliberate lie. There is no possible way to consider our invasion of Iraq a "proportionate response" because there was nothing to respond to.
I wish that we could shame other countries into behaving better. But we have violated international law so badly that we can only hope other countries do not follow our example.
The roots of this conflict go way back. But on Thursday August 7th Georgia attacked South Ossetia, a breakaway province in the north of Georgia, causing heavy civilian casualties. These were mostly Russian citizens with Russian passports. Russia then responded by invading Georgia with a major military force including tanks, artillery and bombers.
On Sunday Bush accused Russia of a "disproportionate response". It may have been. But American no longer has the moral authority to accuse anyone of a "disproportionate response".
We invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Iraq never even attacked us. We accused them of having the ability to attack us sometime in the future. But that turned out to be a deliberate lie. There is no possible way to consider our invasion of Iraq a "proportionate response" because there was nothing to respond to.
I wish that we could shame other countries into behaving better. But we have violated international law so badly that we can only hope other countries do not follow our example.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Q&A on the Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Powers
Impeachment activists have been pushing John Conyers to move forward with impeachment in the Judiciary Committee. But it is not clear how much authority Conyers has. So I had a chat with someone in the House Office of the Parliamentarians. They are the ultimate authority on procedures in the House. I have tried to summarize their answers below. Any errors are my own.
Q1: What is the difference between a real impeachment hearing and the hearing on Friday 7/25?
A1: The difference is simply the question before the committee. The question Friday was "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations". It would have been insulting and off-topic (out of order) to suddenly accuse President Bush of a specific crime in that Friday hearing. So the testimony was very circumspect. But if the question before the committee was "Did Bush commit impeachable offense X" then witnesses could simply say "Bush did X".
Conyers currently has the authority to convene a hearing on a specific question of impeachment.
Q2: Why did Conyers refer to needing approval from the House in order to conduct a real impeachment inquiry.
A2: Approval from the House would give the Committee special powers that they do not normally have. These include the power to conduct field investigation and depose witnesses in the field under oath. These transcripts could be submitted as evidence. They would also have a letter from Congress that would make it easier to interview witnesses in foreign countries. These powers would all be handy when impeaching a President and one would expect the Committee to seek those powers if they wanted to impeach. But Conyers has the authority to proceed without those powers. They can currently conduct hearings on impeachment and place witnesses under oath.
[Blogger's opinion: I see an analogy with going fishing. You can go fishing without a pole and I have caught a fish with my bare hands. But if you are serious about catching a fish then you will probably want to use a pole. To impeach Bush for lying about Iraq, or on torture or Plame-gate then Conyers will probably want to do deep investigations and would want the powers that come from House approval. But Conyers does not need special powers to impeach Bush for refusing to comply with subpoenas. In this case the fish are jumping into the boat.]
Q3: Does Conyers need any other approval before drafting Articles of Impeachment and submitting them to the House?
A3: No. The "committee has that authority".
Q4: How can the House vote on individual Articles of Impeachment if they are submitted as a single Resolution.
A4: The House can "divide the question" and vote on it in parts.
Q1: What is the difference between a real impeachment hearing and the hearing on Friday 7/25?
A1: The difference is simply the question before the committee. The question Friday was "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations". It would have been insulting and off-topic (out of order) to suddenly accuse President Bush of a specific crime in that Friday hearing. So the testimony was very circumspect. But if the question before the committee was "Did Bush commit impeachable offense X" then witnesses could simply say "Bush did X".
Conyers currently has the authority to convene a hearing on a specific question of impeachment.
Q2: Why did Conyers refer to needing approval from the House in order to conduct a real impeachment inquiry.
A2: Approval from the House would give the Committee special powers that they do not normally have. These include the power to conduct field investigation and depose witnesses in the field under oath. These transcripts could be submitted as evidence. They would also have a letter from Congress that would make it easier to interview witnesses in foreign countries. These powers would all be handy when impeaching a President and one would expect the Committee to seek those powers if they wanted to impeach. But Conyers has the authority to proceed without those powers. They can currently conduct hearings on impeachment and place witnesses under oath.
[Blogger's opinion: I see an analogy with going fishing. You can go fishing without a pole and I have caught a fish with my bare hands. But if you are serious about catching a fish then you will probably want to use a pole. To impeach Bush for lying about Iraq, or on torture or Plame-gate then Conyers will probably want to do deep investigations and would want the powers that come from House approval. But Conyers does not need special powers to impeach Bush for refusing to comply with subpoenas. In this case the fish are jumping into the boat.]
Q3: Does Conyers need any other approval before drafting Articles of Impeachment and submitting them to the House?
A3: No. The "committee has that authority".
Q4: How can the House vote on individual Articles of Impeachment if they are submitted as a single Resolution.
A4: The House can "divide the question" and vote on it in parts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
