If I were President 3

Yesterday I talked about democracy as an open form of government. I said I would be far more open with the press, no more lies. I also said I'd re-declassify previously non-classified documents, and open up some investigations into some of the policies of the Bush Administration. One of the worst is the enemy combatants issue and the people we are keeping in Guantanamo Bay (and elsewhere) indefinitely.

Even a conservative court, with many of them siding with the ideology of George Bush, said the keeping of criminals without trial, without access to council, or even knowing what they did wrong is unconstitutional. The Bush administration said, "Fine, good idea" and kept right on ignoring the law of the land, the law of the world (as delineated in the Geneva Convention) and the Constitutionally-granted rights to a speedy trial, the right to council, and the right to confront their accusers. What kind of justice is that? No wonder nearly the entire free world thinks we're hypocritical and is afraid of us.

As Commander in Chief, I would first take us off a war footing with these nations and eliminate the "enemy combatant" label. I would then have the case of each person in Guantanamo, and those rendered to other countries, examined as any criminal case. I would ask the military if each may still have useful information, find out who is actually innocent of the "charges", and immediately release those who were either innocent or those for whom their "crime" would have been paid for by the length of their incarceration (i.e. "time served"). Of course, repatriation may be a problem. This is a problem I have not given full thought to. Perhaps some of them have family to return to. Perhaps some would like to become US citizens (although I doubt that; we've abused them so much I consider the possibility unlikely). I'm not sure what other answers to give until I knew more about the problem, and it would be different for each person.

Once Guantanamo has been emptied, I would return it to the Cubans. It is, after all, their land.

During this process I would have the military, CIA, and FBI re-evaluate their interrogation techniques versus standard practice in the free world, the Geneva Convention, and a general concern for human rights. As I said in an earlier post, terrorists need to be dealt with on a criminal basis, not a war footing. This means going back to the UN and work with the major powers to begin the long, slow process of regaining our status in the world regarding basic human rights.

Of course, human rights within the US are of great concern to me as well. We have some housecleaning to do, such as eliminating the warrant-less wiretapping and other spying on people of the US. The FISA provisions work well for those cases where there is an imminent threat. We don't need the government to be Big Brother; that's so 1984. Orwell would be "proud" of the Bush administration.

Speaking of human rights, I consider the right to health as a basic right. While there is nothing specific in the Constitution about medical care, there wouldn't be anyway; medical care in the late 18th century was just about non-existent. The Founders did not write about it because it simply didn't occur to them. As I've stated before, I am not a strict constructionist; that is a foolish position, in my mind. There are so many new concepts and technologies developed over the last 230+ years which the Founders could not have known about, and to assume because they didn't write about something it can be ignored. That's not logical.

Because I've written a bit about this before (see my post Single Payer Healthcare) I won't go into much more detail here. I will just remind people the three countries with the best health care are France (the best in the world), Taiwan (modeled after our own Medicare system), and Canada... and all three have national health care. Are these systems perfect? No, nor do I expect any healthcare system designed by the US to be perfect either. The big difference between those countries with a national health plan and the United States is the fact we require people to have jobs before they get insurance, while the other countries set out to insure everyone at a basic level and allow those with jobs to purchase better coverage. We have to learn the way to better care is not to line the pockets of corporations but to care about the individual. This is a major paradigm shift, but will have to be made not only for healthcare but our energy policy, safety, climate change, and so on. The big mistake was considering a corporation to be the same as a single person in regards to who can petition the US government to do what they want. There is no possible way one person, or even a million single individuals, can compete against a powerful lobby backed by deep corporate pockets. This practice must end.

Well, that was quite a soap box speech. My next post may be just as interesting: social programs other than national health care. See you then!

Obama and the New Yorker

By now, everyone's seen the New Yorker cover with Michelle in fatigues and Barack in Muslim clothes, an American flag on the fire, and a picture of Osama bin Laden over the fireplace. I understand, I think, the New Yorker's position that it's a satire over how the far right sees the Obamas. Accurate or not, this extreme form of satire should not be on the cover of a magazine.

I am all in favor of a free press, but posting such a picture without explanation on a magazine known for its careful research and quality writing is not helpful but harmful. Not only is it harmful to the Obamas, it is harmful to the people of the United States. It keeps stereotypes alive and promulgates hate. If it were posted in a story discussing the issue, fine, it would (hopefully) stimulate discussion. As used, however, it's just bad.

A big reason for that is, obviously, bias. Anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim radical working with bin Laden, and/or thinks Michelle Obama is a terrorist or militant, is going to believe this cover proves it. Some sort of disclaimer should accompany this picture. Not that a disclaimer would keep everyone from thinking the Obamas are terrorists, but it might help those on the edge or wavering.

Satire is a two-edged sword, and it requires some open-mindedness and awareness to understand it properly. I have no idea whether anyone thought Jonathon Swift really wanted to eat children, but his satire was less biting than the New Yorker image.