On Wednesday a group of students from the University of California Santa Barbara sabotaged a CIA recruiting presentation to protest covert U.S. torture and rendition policies and waterboarding in particular. Dressed as clowns, one of the group was placed on a table in front of the recruiter, who subsequently made a quick exit, their hands bound and water poured over their head to simulate waterboarding, the controversial mock-drowning strategy practiced by the CIA.

Furthermore, an anti-torture rally at UC Berkley went even further , seeing a man pulled from the crowd and used as the subject in a real life waterboarding demonstration. The event was clearly effective and shocked the audience significantly. In the words of one student:

"I was aware of it on a purely intellectual level but actually seeing it in person is a whole different thing. It’s one thing to know its torture and say that’s really bad, that really sucks. But to see somebody screaming and coughing and choking in front of you, it’s a very emotional experience."

With the nomination of Michael Mukasey as the new U.S. Attorney General following the departure of Alberto Gonzales, which was opposed by Citizens for Global Solutions due to his inability to state categorically on the record that waterboarding constitutes torture, California students are clearly ensuring that this issue stays on the agenda, which is an encouraging sign.

Check out Mike Otterman's blog for more information.

By Tom Moran

(Huene Island, pictured above, part of the Carteret Island chain, has literally been cut in two by rising sea levels)

Papua New Guinea's Mission to the United Nations recently announced that it would evacuate the Carteret Islands, a horseshoe-shaped group of islands in the South Pacific. 2,000 Carteret Islanders slanders will receive funding to resettle on Bougainville Island, which is a four-hour boat ride away.

The Carteret Islanders are not the world's first climate refugees, but since they have all been displaced together, they may become some of the best known. Meanwhile, people like Jim Inhofe insist that we sit on our hands.

Below is the press release from the Papua New Guinea Mission to the United Nations (I'd link to it, but as you can see, the PNG Mission web site isn't quite up and running).

PNG TO RESETTLE CARTERET ISLANDERS AS SEA LEVEL RISES

PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea (The National, Oct. 17) - The Carteret Islands are almost invisible on a map of the South Pacific, but the horseshoe scattering of atolls in eastern-most Papua New Guinea is on the front line of climate change, as rising sea levels and storm surges eat away at their existence. For 20 years, the 2,000 islanders living there have fought a losing battle against the ocean, building sea walls and trying to plant mangroves. Each year, the waves surge in higher, destroying vegetable gardens, washing away homes and contaminating fresh water supplies. Recently, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare appropriated PGK4.1 million [US$1.4 million] to resettle PNG villagers affected by global warming. The funding was part of a PGK1.6 billion [US$569 million] supplementary budget handed down by Treasury and Finance Minister Patrick Pruaitch. Out of the PGK4.1 million funding, PGK2 million [US$712,000] will go to the Bougainville Autonomous Region's Carteret Islanders. The local Bougainville government has an ongoing resettlement program which it hopes to complete by the end of the year. Rising sea levels will not only displace human populations. Coral reefs are expected to be affected by changes in ocean levels and sea surface temperatures.

Scott Paul

This is the second "Weekly Gaff," a feature inspired by Frank Gaffney, who has engineered a campaign of misinformation in the pages of the Washington Times. In last week's edition, we touched on treaty arch-enemy Senator Jim Inhofe's attempt to "retrofit unilateralism" and his concession that the arguments against the treaty aren't actually true.

This week, Gaffney only mentions the Law of the Sea as one of many instances of President Bush's selling out conservatives. He says the Law of the Sea would subject the U.S. to international tribunals, which is demonstrably false. I've explained that briefly here. It is explained further in this Duke University policy brief. Senator Inhofe even conceded as much here.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration and Senator John Warner, who was the Secretary of Defense's representative for the framework talks on the Law of the Sea, both posted statements yesterday commending the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for favorably voting out the Law of the Sea. Warner is a thoughtful man whom the Senate will miss. While some senators are willing to sacrifice national security and prosperity to pander to the John Bolton and Frank Gaffney types, others, like Senator Warner, are sticking to their principles. His statement:

As you may know, I was the representative for the Secretary of Defense to the framework talks for United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in Geneva from 1969 to 1973. The main principles behind UNCLOS have been supported by every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan. Foremost among these principles is a fulfillment of U.S. interests in having a comprehensive legal framework relating to competing uses of the world's oceans. However, there were several provisions of the original agreement that were unacceptable to the United States, including provisions relating to deep seabed mining that were inconsistent with free market principles. These concerns were addressed to the satisfaction of the United States in the formulation of a 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention. As a result, President Clinton transmitted both the Convention and the 1994 Agreement to Congress for advice and consent in 1994, but the Senate did not act on the Treaty at that time. Both agreements are in effect based on ratification by other signatory countries. But without U.S. ratification, the United States is unable to participate in implementation of the Convention.

President Bush has requested that the Senate approve the treaty. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously reported the 1982 U.N. Law of the Sea Convention and 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention to the Senate for consideration. On May 15, 2007, the President renewed his call for ratification of the Convention. He urged the Senate to pass the Convention by the two-thirds majority needed for approval of a treaty and on October 31, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the matter and voted the treaty out favorably with a bi-partisan vote of 17 to 4. The Senate Majority leader will now determine when the treaty will be brought before the full Senate.

Of further note, I chaired a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Convention on April 19, 2005. Based on testimony presented at that hearing, I am convinced that the Convention is compatible with the interests of our Armed Forces and enhances, rather than undermines, our national security by providing for the sovereign immunity of warships and right of travel. Then Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark testified that the Treaty does not require the United States military to get a "permission slip" to operate around the world, nor would it compromise intelligence capabilities. Instead, according to Admiral Clark, it will help provide the "strategic mobility needed to fight the war on terrorism." In fact, the Navy already exercises many of the tenets of the Treaty during current operations.

I have concluded that, in addition to its military value, the Convention will also provide economic benefits to the United States in the form of full and legal access to over 370,000 square miles of our seabed natural resources, while ensuring that the world's oceans are clean and marine life is protected from harm. Therefore, I support the timely passage and ratification of this important treaty.

Scott Paul

About a month ago, far-right activists pressed hard for Republican candidates for President to take a position on the Law of the Sea. Most of them did.

Senator John McCain was asked about it on a bloggers' conference call. The answer he gave satisfied the bloggers at the time, but if it really does mean he opposes the convention, it is at odds with over a decade of his well-documented leadership in support of U.S. ratification. No matter what his position actually is, the Straight Talk Express has been seriously derailed.

Here's what McCain said on the conference call:

I'd like to make some changes to it. I think that we need a Law of the Sea. I think it's important, but I have not frankly looked too carefully at the latest situation as it is, but it would be nice if we had some of the provisions in it. But I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form.

I would like to see a treaty as far something to bring order, for example, in a place like the Arctic right now, where thanks to climate change, it's going to be far more important than it was. You watch the Russians asserting their sovereignty over it, and I'd like to see some order out of that chaos. But I'm just too concerned about the aspect of United States sovereignty being handed over to some international organization.

McCain says he'd "probably vote against" the treaty, but he leaves himself an opening wide enough to drive a truck through.

My guess is that McCain favors U.S. accession to the convention but wanted to play to the crowd and simply slipped and went too far (hence the "more flip than flop" title of this post). To support that view, here's some e-mail dated yesterday that McCain's office sent out about his position on the treaty:

November 14, 2007

Mr. and Mrs. Ray Spitzer

11228 North 58th Avenue

Glendale, AZ 85304

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Spitzer:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I appreciate knowing your views.

Historically, the U.S. has been a global leader in advocating the Law of the Sea. Proponents of its ratification strongly believe the Treaty would help strengthen our national security, promote the free and unimpeded flow of international trade and commerce, and protect our vital natural resources. It has been more than eleven years since the Treaty was transmitted to the Senate for ratification.

The Treaty provides a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas and serves as an umbrella convention under which rules are established for governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. I recognize there are wide ranging views held on this issue, but please be assured I will keep your position in mind should this resolution be brought up for debate in the full Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me again on issues of importance to you or to consult my web page at mccain.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

John McCain

Again, McCain leaves himself room here, but there's no doubt this is a supportive letter.

More important, though, is McCain's efforts to get the treaty ratified over the past ten years. In 1998, McCain joined Republican Senators Susan Collins, John Chafee, and Frank Murkowski on a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging immediate consideration and approval of the Law of the Sea. A few years ago, when the Committee first considered the treaty under the direction of Chairman Richard Lugar, McCain was scheduled to testify in support of the treaty but backed out due to scheduling conflicts.

Since the letter to SFRC isn't publicly available and McCain never testified before the Committee, that means McCain's off the hook, rightt? Wrong. McCain submitted written testimony, which was included in the Committee's report on the treaty to the full Senate.

McCain can't run from this:

October 14, 2003 - Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA,

CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE

I am pleased to testify, today in support of the Senate's ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over oceans, and maritime and ocean navigation, I believe ratification of this important Convention would help strengthen our national security, promote the free and unimpeded flow of inter-national trade and commerce, and protect our vital natural resources. Its ratification would enable the United States to regain its leadership role in promoting the rule of law for the oceans and encouraging respect for traditional navigational freedoms.

Throughout our nation's history, our security and economic well-being have long been dependent on our free access to the world's seas. The oceans have helped to protect us against potential adversaries, facilitate the transportation and trade of our products, and provided abundant fish and natural resources in the waters off our shores.

The United States has historically been a global leader in advocating the Law of the Sea. After World War II, the United States was at the forefront in calling for a formal Law of the Sea and was one of its champions during the two decade struggle to draft this Convention. However, when the Convention was opened for signature in 1982, much of the developed world, led by the United States, refused to sign it over concerns with the provisions related to deep seabed exploitation.

In the early 1990s, the United States helped craft an important compromise which satisfied the many objections to the deep seabed mining provisions. Yet despite removing this impediment, we still have not ratified this Convention, which to date has been ratified by 143 countries.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea provides a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas and it serves as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established. As a global power, the United States depends on ready and unrestricted access to the world's oceans and international airspace. The navigational rights and freedoms codified by the Convention would ensure our military continues to have the mobility it needs to maintain a military presence around the world and move military forces where needed. Additionally, these rights and freedoms will ensure our nation's ability to ship goods and materials throughout the world using the most expeditious routes.

Support for Convention ratification within the United States is widespread and diverse, including environmental groups, the maritime industry, the oil and natural gas industry, and the oceanographic research community. The Clinton Administration previously supported ratifying the Convention and now the U.S. State Department has indicated its support of ratification. Additionally, in one of its first official acts, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy publicly called for ratification of the Convention.

As a result of our failure to ratify the Convention, our national interests have suffered. We are now barred from membership on the Law of the Sea Tribunal and the Continental Shelf Commission as well as the right to name members to special arbitration panels which are responsible for settling interstate disputes. In these bodies, the United States has been relegated to observer status. Furthermore, the United States is barred from membership in the International Seabed Authority where parties to the Convention organize and direct ventures to exploit the mineral resources of the deep seabed.

The importance of the U.S. ratification of the Convention is further compounded by the emerging issues brought about because of Global Climate. For example, as the Arctic icecap around the Canadian Arctic archipelago continues to shrink and thin, some scientists have suggested the Northwest Passage could be open for possible year-round navigable passage within 10 to 15 years. As a result, the contentious issue of whether this passage will be an international strait or considered part of Canadian waters will need to be determined.

It has been more than nine years since the Convention was transmitted to the Senate for ratification, where it has since resided with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Today's hearing is an important step toward finally addressing this critical international issue and I hope it prompts Senate ratification of the Convention in the near future.

Again, based on the written record and the mail he's sending constituents, my guess is that McCain wanted to win over the conservative blogger crowd and simply went a little overboard. More flop than flip. But we will see.

Scott Paul

This week, I attended two fascinating briefings on how the American public is thinking about the world. The first was a press conference to unveil research sponsored by the UN Foundation and the second was a small working group organized by the Stanley Foundation.

The major takeaway from both sessions? We're living in a post-Iraq world and looking for a post-Iraq foreign policy as of right now. The post-9/11 era that dominated U.S. opinion and decision-making for the early part of this decade is effectively over, except in the minds of the approximately 25 percent of Americans that represent the Republican base.

This isn't a momentary change, either -- it's a more fundamental change in the way that Americans view the world.

Americans want something different than what we've got now. People want the U.S. to work with other countries, forge global partnerships, and restore our standing in the world. "Go it alone," is a non-starter. Interestingly, Americans view the decline of our reputation as a major problem. The classic conservative mantra "foreign policy isn't a popularity contest" isn't really politically viable anymore.

One disconcerting finding, though, is that there appears to be a new wave of isolationism, represented by folks like Lou Dobbs and Ron Paul. Both would probably object to "isolationist" as an appropriate label for their school of thought, but they do believe fundamentally that neither the U.S. nor the world is well-served when the U.S. is involved in global problem-solving.

This group of citizens -- who are primarily young Kerry voters -- would prefer that the U.S. government focus its attention on domestic problems and worry less about global issues. In part, that's because this group can't conceive of a different form of global engagement other than the Bush foreign policy of pre-emptive military strikes and poorly executed occupation.

Barring a catastrophic, public psyche-shaking event, the American electorate will not accept a candidate who proposes to continue President Bush's arrogant approach and emphasis on unilateral use of the military to solve problems. To satisfy many of these "new isolationists," the next President will have to present a compelling vision of positive American influence based on diplomacy, working with international institutions, and genuine global partnership. That will be hard -- but not impossible.

Scott Paul

More than 70 years ago, Congress created the Farm Bill. It was designed to give American farmers a safety net when the market bottomed out. Fast forward seven decades and this legislation hurts farmers in rural America and around the globe.

Today's Farm Bill gives out large government checks — commodity subsidies — to producers of a small number of crops. Most American farmers get little or nothing. Meanwhile, people in rural communities are suffering. They lack medical services, good schools and their land suffers environmental degradation.

According to Bread for the World, a leading anti-hunger organization, the times they are a changing from the birth of the Farm Bill:

The landscape of rural America is quite different now than during the 1930s, when direct government support for farmers began, yet the farm bill has not kept pace with changing times. Less than 2 percent of the U.S. population is currently engaged in farming, compared to 21 percent in 1930. Today the vast majority of rural residents work in non-farm jobs, such as retail service or factory work. Many farmers, in fact, take second jobs off the farm. Roughly the same amount of farmland is being used, but the farms themselves have grown larger, more specialized and more corporate. Federal farm policy has not kept pace with changes in the farm sector or with changes in rural America.

In fact, the Farm Bill not only harms people in the U.S., it especially burdens farmers in developing countries. The current state of U.S. farm policy encourages domestic overproduction of crops such as cotton and rice. The commodity payment to large – mostly corporate-owned farms - creates a glut that drives down world prices, undermining the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world.

Cotton farmers in countries like Senegal, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali have much lower production costs than those in the U.S. However, these African farmers cannot survive when world prices are so low, thanks in part to U.S. cotton commodity payments. For these African nations, where 10 million people who earn roughly $1 to $2 a day depend directly on cotton, U.S. farm programs shatter hopes of reducing hunger and poverty.

Rekha Basu, of the Des Moines Register, writes:

Between 2002 and 2005, American taxpayers shelled out $47 billion in commodity payments to producers of only five crops, to make up the difference between the market price and a "fair" price. Never mind if there's a glut of a product, or if a farmer would serve himself and his community better by diversifying.

"Direct payments are not a safety net, and are paid regardless of harvest or market conditions," acknowledges Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who have proposed a farm bill containing modest reforms. "Large payments go to a subset of the largest producers even in times of record profits."

Not only does this system of corporate welfare for wealthy farmers hurt small farmers' ability to compete, but in poor countries linked to us through so-called free-trade agreements, it makes it impossible for farmers to survive.

Besides direct subsidies, U.S. cotton farmers have the benefit of American infrastructure and technology to develop, for example, pesticide-resistant seeds. Meanwhile, cotton farmers in Mali, the world's poorest country, get no subsidies and lack decent roads to deliver goods to the port. As America pumps out a glut of cotton, the world price declines, and Mali's farmers suffer.

As Rekha notes, there has to be a better way, don’t you think?

 

Last Friday, World Public Opinion.org released a poll exploring American and Russian opinion on nuclear weapons policy. Results reveal that the public strongly favors steps towards the elimination of nuclear weapons; 73 percent of Americans and 63 percent of Russians support the elimination of nuclear weapons under the auspices of an effective international system. What’s more is that both publics (79 percent of Americans and 66 percent of Russians) want their governments to do more to achieve disarmament.

Another key finding is the overwhelming support for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; 80 percent of Americans and Russians support ratification of the CTBT (And for another example of the foreign policy gap , 56 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. participates in the treaty) . Take a look at many more important findings in the full report here (PDF) .

-Natasha

I have no interest in paying $27 for John Bolton's Surrender is Not an Option, even if he were willing to sign it from me. But I have been enjoying recent reviews of the book.

Mark Goldberg's take, written for the American Prospect, is especially sharp. As a reporter for the Prospect and my fellow co-contributor to the now fortunately defunct Bolton Watch blog, Mark was at the UN following Bolton's diplomatic mishaps from recess appointment to resignation. His review provides important context for the events described in the book.

Granted, anything Mark, Steve Clemons , my colleagues at Citizens for Global Solutions or I have to say about John Bolton could be viewed as biased. After all, we actively worked to block his nomination. But if that's true, no one should waste even one second reading "The Courage of Conviction," a review of Surrender in the New York Sun. It was written by none other than Michael Ledeen, Bolton's AEI colleague, co-advisor to JINSA, and Iran war cheerleader extraordinaire.

Any truth to the rumor that Messrs. Ledeen and Bolton co-wrote the review at the AEI company picnic?

Of course not. I just started that rumor. But for those readers expecting an impartial review, Ledeen is way too close to Bolton to deliver.

Scott Paul

Yesterday I took my annual pilgrimage from the global to the local and spent the day as poll watcher in Virginia. One of my duties was to hand out sample Democratic ballots to voters before they went inside to vote. The polling station had two parking lots on either side of the entrance. By law we needed to be at least 40 feet from the door. On a busy year there would have been at least two workers per party there, but this was an off year election so there was only one from each party. My Republican colleague Gary and I spent a good deal of energy scurrying from one side to the other to greet voters as they trickled in. He was an older fellow and at one time had been a chief of staff for a Senator on the Hill.

In the afternoon a young high school student came to help Gary out. All of the students in our school district need at least 5 hours of community service to graduate and she was fulfilling this requirement as part of her government class. She had been born in Afghanistan, grew up in Germany and the Czech Republic, and was now living in Virginia. Her dad is a journalist and works for the Voice of America. I never got her name.

It was getting close to 5 PM and the volume of voters picked up. It was becoming difficult for me to get to both sides of the door. I asked this young lady if she would mind handing out Democratic as well as Republican sample ballots. She agreed to. A while later I notice a middle-aged woman in a red, white and blue jump suit walk up to the polls. When the high school student approached her I heard her yell, “No. I’m an American and I know how to vote!” She went in to vote but when she came out she got on her cell phone and started yelling to someone that “there weren’t enough Republicans here” and “we need to get all of these [explicative deleted] foreigners out of our country.” You could tell that the student could hear her too.

I told Gary what was going on and he went up to the red, white and blue lady. He explained that this girl was a volunteer and that she was learning about how democracy worked. He said that this girl’s dad’s job was to help represent our nation to the world. The red, white and blue lady would not recant and kept saying, “we need to get these foreigners out of here,” even though she had no clue what this young lady’s citizenship was.

Then Gary asked the red, white and blue lady if she was there as a Republican. She said, “Yes.” Gary told her that he was ashamed she was part of the same party he was representing. She walked away. That’s when I told Gary that although this lady made him ashamed, he made me proud to be an American.

Not too long after this the young lady had finished her community service time and her dad came to pick her up. We had talked with her and express how upset we were by this bigoted red, white and blue lady. The young lady left with quite an education on American democracy.

Afterwards, the stream of voters was increasing. Gary and I came to the conclusion that since most folks already know which way they were going to vote; our sample ballots would just be guiding them to the names they were looking for. We decided to each take one side of the door and hand each voter a Democratic and a Republican sample ballot. We did this until the polls closed. It was the most bipartisan partisanship I’ve ever encountered.

Of course that didn’t stop me from celebrating when my party rested control of the Virginia Senate for the first time in twelve years. Democracy – you gotta love it.

Just in case our recent array of posts and our organization's stand against Attorney General nominee Judge Mukasey are not convincing enough, here is a letter sent to the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee from four retired Judge Advocates General on the issue.

November 2, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

Years from now, hopefully not too far off in the future, historians will note the heroism displayed by Daniel Levin.

Who is Daniel Levin? He used to be the Acting Assistant Attorney General, who according to ABC News was:

A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.

Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.

After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

Not surprisingly, Levin was overruled by the Bush White House and eventually let go when Alberto Gonzalez became Bush’s Attorney General. As Raj noted below with the amazing commentary by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s “Countdown” last night, Levin deserved better…and so do we.

To read Levin's memo from 2004, click here.

To view ABC's report, and why the Bush administration let Levin go, check out this. 

We Torture

It's amazing that what passes for political courage in national politics seems commonsense at the municipal level. New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg told the U.S. Conference of Mayors:

Last spring, as part of our PlaNYC initiative, we proposed a system of congestion pricing based on successful programs in London, Stockholm and Singapore. The plan would charge drivers $8 to enter Manhattan on weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., which would help us reduce the congestion that is choking our economy, the pollution that has helped produce asthma rates that are twice the national average, and the carbon dioxide that is fueling global warming.

Now, the question is not whether we want to pay, but how do we want to pay. With an increased asthma rate? With more greenhouse gases? Wasted time? Lost business? Higher prices? Or do we charge a modest fee to encourage more people to take mass transit and use that money to expand mass transit service? When you look at it that way, the idea makes a lot of sense, but for the politics, because no one likes the idea of paying more. But being up front and honest about the costs and benefits, we've been able to build a coalition of supporters that includes conservatives and liberals, labor unions and businesses, and community leaders throughout the city.

Bloomberg goes on to suggest that in order to prevent the costs of climate change from spiraling out of control, we should be prepared to pay a smaller carbon tax now. Right on.

Additionally, Bloomberg opens a window into his thinking on international affairs. He hasn't had too many opportunities to comment on his big-picture vision of U.S. foreign policy, so this paragraph is especially interesting:

It's time for America to re-establish its leadership on all issues of international importance, including climate change. Because if we are going to remain the world's moral compass -- a role that we played throughout the 20th century, not always perfectly, but pretty darn well -- we need to regain our footing on the world stage. That means ending the "go-it-alone" approach to foreign affairs that has never served America well. It didn't work in the 1920s, when we tried to isolate ourself from the world, and it hasn't work in recent years, when we've tried to stand above it, pretending that vital international treaties can simply be ignored. The fight against global warming is a test of America's leadership -- and not just on the environment.

Connecting the dots between climate change and foreign policy? Check. Working with allies? Check. Restoring moral credibility? Viewing multilateral treaties as a foundation for a stable international environment and prosperous United States? Check and check.

Bloomberg may not have extensive foreign policy experience, but he is demonstrating excellent instincts here. Hopefully -- whether or not Bloomberg becomes a candidate for higher office -- there will be more where this came from.

Scott Paul

As Raj Purohit and Scott Paul have noted, we are strongly opposed to Judge Mukasey’s nomination to be our country’s next Attorney General. Surprisingly, this decision became quite easy for Citizens for Global Solutions. After all, for the next Attorney General to be unable to say if torture is torture, how can this person be trusted to speak truth to power, that is the current White House?

After Judge Mukasey’s first day of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his nomination appeared more than safe. He was honest and straight forward, saying that “Torture is unlawful….” Then, one day later, it became obvious that somebody got to him.

Why?

Because he then testified that he could not say if waterboarding is torture.