text:
December 11, 2013, TD Blog Interview with John Hickman
John Hickman is Associate Professor of Government and International Studies at Berry College in Mt. Berry, Georgia. He is the author of Selling Guantanamo: Exploding the Propaganda Surrounding America's Most Notorious Prison, in which he offers a detailed critique of the "official narrative" the public has been provided surrounding Guantanamo Bay and the men it holds. On December 11, 2013, I had the privilege of interviewing John Hickman by telephone. What follows are my interview notes, as corrected by Professor Hickman.
The Talking Dog Traditional first question... Where were you on 11 Sept., 2001?
John Hickman: I was sitting at my desk here in Evans Hall on the campus of Berry College, then as I am right now. One of my academic specialties is election research-- often dry, quantitative research -- and that's what I was working on when a student telephoned to tell me to get to a television set immediately. Walked down to the Evans Hall faculty lounge, and watched the horrors unfold with other faculty members and students.
The Talking Dog What got you, a mild-mannered government professor at Berry College in Georgia, interested in the subject of Guantanamo, and in particular, in its propaganda underpinnings?
John Hickman: I note that there are probably a number of more mild-mannered professors here at Berry College (which I should note is actually the largest contiguous college campus in the world at 28,000 acres, here in Northwestern Georgia-- with 2,000 students, we have an acres per student ratio!) It's a beautiful campus, if anyone is interested in visiting! Back to the question, I grew up on Army bases. I was constantly around evidence of the power of the state, at bases in Wurzburg, Germany, El Paso, Texas and other locales. Later, I found myself in Oxford, Mississippi in the last days of segregation. I became acutely aware that some people would just believe anything-- such as older people who believed in nonsensical justifications for segregation and then pitched them to me.
As such, I have always been interested in the power of ideas, and the presentation of those ideas, especially when they are used by the powerful for purposes of deceiving.
In the case of Guantanamo, I watched [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld speak about Guantanamo, and I was bothered by his presentation-- his words, his tone, his body language. I note that the Guantanamo decision was an extraordinary one-- and the reasons given for it were implausible on their face. I thought that perhaps there might be a book in this!
I know a number of others have dealt with aspects of the imprisonment itself-- but I wanted to tell the story of the narrative offered for it, and how it both seemed, and it turned out, is, both extraordinary, and implausible.
The Talking Dog Notwithstanding my personal proximity to the WTC on 9-11 (my office was a block away, I lost my job, some people I knew were killed, and my home in Brooklyn and the lungs of myself and my family were subjected to God knows what burning from the site for the next several months), of your reckoning of "the official rationale" for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (they represented extraordinary threats to the American people, possessed valuable enemy intelligence, and were awaiting prosecution for terrorism or war crimes), it was the last one-- possible prosecution in a "new Nuremberg" paradigm"-- that first drew me in to the subject, possibly as a matter of professional interest to me as a lawyer. I should also note-- and I will ask specifically about him below-- that I was also extremely concerned about the Jose Padilla situation. I note that after I interviewed attorneys involved in the defense of prisoners set for military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, I learned that the commissions turned out to be the tip of a rather troubling iceberg of hundreds of other men detained at GTMO who should never have been held as prisoners to begin with. Did any of the "official narrative" rationales strike you as particularly more compelling subjects of your interest, as opposed to the others?
John Hickman: What seemed to have caught everyone was "the worst of the worst" language. It struck me that the elevation of a bunch of nobodies into terrorist supermen reminded me of the domestic invention of "super-predator" criminals. It struck me as a brilliant right-wing narrative-- tapping into the anxiety and anger surrounding the September 11th perpetrators combined with the general anxiety about violent crime.
Of course, what was lost on American audiences was why Guantanamo was significant in terms of what it meant for international law, such as the Geneva Conventions. Americans did not pay attention to the broader significance of American unilateralism, whereas European and Asian audiences, perhaps more sensitive to violations and abandonment of those structures in World War II and other recent conflicts, did "get it" in a way that simply didn't register with most Americans. I teach a course in Genocide and War Crimes, and my students learn that much of international humanitarian law originates here in the United States, with the Civil War era Lieber Code. But notwithstanding the American origins of this body of law, somehow, its apparent abandonment seemed to resonate so little with Americans in general.
The Talking Dog You observe that in "the early days" of Guantanamo Bay, decisions were made to exhibit the prisoners to politicians, diplomats, and other elites, and, of course, the press was given a glimpse of the shackled men in orange jumpsuits, which played to cheers domestically, and jeers in the rest of the world (almost without exception). In some sense, I tend to think that many of the decisions surrounding Guantanamo initially, while doubtless doctrinally driven, were rather ad hoc, and in all cases, were driven by domestic political concerns. The question, if I can ever get it out, is whether you believe the orange-jump-suit "perp walks" and the open air kennel cages first shown to the world were anything more than a knee-jerk, ad hoc decision, which, on further reflection, were made politically useful after the fact (which may actually explain all of GTMO detention operations)... or if they were actually intended from the get-go to serve the propaganda equivalent of Roman legions returning with barbarians in chains dragged through the imperial capital... (something as you observed that was also done by American forces with native Americans at times in our history)... or if there is yet another possibility I didn't consider?
John Hickman: Was it intended-- from the outset-- as a spectacle? I am convinced that the answer to this is "YES."
The guys making the decisions were politicians with an acute awareness of how to run campaigns. They even saw longer term time horizons than the next hour or day or short term horizons. They were experienced at making decisions like that, designed to impact both the immediate news cycle and the broader campaign.
Let's just say that many if not most decent human beings are less calculated in their actions than these decision-makers, who make decisions based on the likely public reception of their messages, designed for multiple time horizons. Decisions based on how they were played in news cycles, and whether you win in the end, were calculated, and in the case of the Guantanamo narrative, calculated quite successfully.
The Talking Dog You have observed, quite accurately, that both explicitly and implicitly, journalists, pundits, lawyers, academics, and even released prisoners who authored books about the island prison (many of whom have themselves been the subject of TD blog interviews) endorsed some or most of the elements of the official narrative. This leads me to (at least) a two-part question... (a) in some sense, this is almost a meta-problem, straying from the official narrative too far might make it very hard for one to get published (especially in North America), or indeed, it might make it hard even for sympathetic readers to grasp on to the story, and so the question becomes how one could reasonably expect someone that close to the story to express it differently-- or if you like, how would you have preferred the stories to have been expressed?... And (b) the flip side of that question, which I've been trying to deal with for years myself, noting that for the most part the people willing to be interviewed by, say, me, a one-off independent anonymous blogger with a small readership, are generally those for whom "the regular channels" aren't effectively dispensing their message... admittedly, I am not wedded to "the official narrative," but nor am I able to overcome the incessant official-narrative drumbeat ("worst of the worst," "you're with us or you're with the terrorists," "can't be tried but too dangerous to release") that virtually all Americans apparently accept with the same degree of certainty as tomorrow's sunrise... in other words, maybe it's just the first part of the question all over again... but unless one is willing to invite the whole "Susan Sontag" treatment to be brought upon themselves, isn't it just about impossible to avoid the "official narrative," even as one is criticizing it?
John Hickman: Once again, the thing to recognize is that Bush Administration's official narrative about Guantanamo were spectacularly successful. The messages were repeated with impressive consistency, and audiences started repeating it back to themselves without even thinking about it! Indeed, even those close to the story-- such as former prisoners themselves-- often end up repeating large parts of it! It is an extraordinarily clever narrative. It was put out there-- and other elites, such as the news media, did not challenge it, which was their professional responsibility.
And now to this day, figures such as one of Georgia's Senators, Saxby Chambliss, just call everyone at Guantanamo "a terrorist." This is an extremely powerful lie.
And yet, many people feel compelled to repeat the lie; it is not even clear if it's even conscious any more-- it's that powerful a narrative.
As a scholar, however, I can speak to a wide range of audiences, and can to that extent, "be free" to challenge it. But it is clear that the effectiveness of the official narrative must be respected, and it must be feared. It's that powerful.
The Talking Dog Following up that last question (or questions?), one of the works you critiqued for advancing "the official narrative" was that of Army linguist Erik Saar, author of "Inside the Wire", whom I interviewed back in 2006. You noted that Saar, himself at GTMO as a linguist there to assist in interrogations, naturally "bought into" the "intelligence gathering" rationale (even as he clearly did not buy into "the worst of the worst" rationale.) I'd ask you about my series of questions and Saar's answers below (my question to you is right after that):
The Talking Dog: OK, let me use that a segue into a question I wanted to ask later, but I think applies to this. And that is my supposition that the higher ups simply didn't care whether they got any useful intelligence, i.e., they knew they by and large had people with no connection to Al Qaeda, but simply wanted to "look tough" for political or other "non-military" reasons?
Erik Saar: I thought that was a most interesting question, and no one has asked me that question in quite that way. One part of me wants to answer "Maybe". But my answer is I don't think so, and here's why. To the point of complete ignorance, a lot of our leaders thought that Guantanamo was full of bad people-- actual terrorists, all with useful intelligence if we could get it out of them. The initial process of how detainees got to Guantanamo was what was most flawed. The mistakes just unfolded and compounded from there.
The Talking Dog: And, of course, no one would admit that any mistakes were made...
Erik Saar: No, and that's critically important. I spoke with someone who was an officer involved from the get-go in setting up the base for detentions. He certainly had a belief that we needed a place to send the worst people around, and that Guantanamo was that place and the people we were sending were the worst. The original concept was an effort-- or at least a belief--that the people sent to Gitmo only were hardened al Qaeda members. However I believe there both practical and political reasons that detainees often left Afghanistan and found themselves in Guantanamo's legal black hole. Eventually detainees were sent so rapidly that who was who in an intelligence sense became hopelessly convoluted. Even if you put aside any moral problems with the possibility of detaining men who shouldn't be there, you're left with a hopeless problem of how can I-- a junior NCO-- figure out who is who? Some of these guys were trained terrorists; others were sheep herders in the wrong place. You're putting junior soldiers in a position of trying to sort this out, and you are asking for a disaster.
OK... my question to you is...
I personally have no doubt of Saar's sincerity in the belief of his responses... my question to you is whether you would be willing, at least in part, to accept the Charlie Foxtrot ("cluster-f*ck") possibility of-- even accepting that the "intel" rationale was patently absurd on its face-- that what was really driving things was the pathological stupidity of senior members of the Bush Administration... [or if you, like, please feel consider Yogi Berra's adage, "in theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are different..."] or put another way, that, regardless of the actual facts, whether reasonably or unreasonably, some people in the military-- and possibly higher up in the Bush Administration-- actually believed that if they simply scooped up enough adult Muslim males in South Central Asia and then shipped them to Cuba to be given "the third-degree", someone would have something of intelligence value. Possible... or just absurd? How would you respond to that?
John Hickman: We have to recognize that the "product" out Guantanamo did not have to be effective as intelligence in its own right. It just had to convince the American public that it was, and to effectively signal to the rest of the world that we were changing American foreign policy to jettison such niceties as the Geneva Conventions and other limitations on American assertion of power. On those terms, it succeeded brilliantly!
I grew up on Army bases. Many of my extended family have served in the military. There is a mindset of the loyal soldier that you go forward with your orders and your mission. If, as happens from time to time, that your orders and your mission require you to mouth nonsense, that's just part of the deal. As an academic, I don't have to do that.
I have to say, yet again, that the success of the narrative is there-- as a propaganda success of course, rather than an "intelligence" success, because from the "intel" standpoint, there was little or nothing useful obtained as "an intel" matter from the prisoners at Guantanamo.
The Talking Dog: One area that your answer suggests is the comparison of "the narrative" concerning Guantanamo with the narrative that led us into the Iraq War. Can you discuss these connections?
John Hickman: The Iraq rationales were offered to the public in sequence rather than all at once as with Guantanamo. As one rationale for the Iraq War failed -- be it, Saddam's "WMD" stockpiles, the need to bring "democracy" to Iraq, Saddam's harboring of terrorists, or human rights abuses in Iraq, a new one would be offered. Much of the public eventually recognized that each of these rationales was a fraud of some kind, and hence, the Iraq narrative-- as a narrative-- was ultimately unsuccessful.
What connects Iraq to the Guantanamo narrative, however, is the spectacle of victory. We held the virtual prisoner parade to show that Afghanistan was a quick, decisive victory, which would in turn pave the way for us to go on to the main event-- the Iraq war.
The Talking Dog You have provided a plethora of scholarship and outstanding analysis to conclude that the official narrative was cover for the actual propaganda agenda of GTMO, which you show had three components: (1) the prisoners were put on display as symbols of military victory, (2) the prisoners suffered "enhanced interrogation"-- better known as "torture" (or "cruel and degrading treatment" under international law at an absolute minimum) so that someone could be punished as substitutes for the architects of 9/11 who remained at large, and (3) the prisoners were used as pawns in a neoconservative move to signal a new U.S. foreign policy that ignored the United Nations (and irritating things like the Kyoto protocols), disregarded the Geneva Conventions, and scoffed at the International Criminal Court. Assuming (accurately) that I accept those as the underlying policy rationale for establishing "the legal black hole" on the edge of Cuba, my first question is whether you believe any of those three was the most compelling reason for the Bush Administration's opening of the place-- and for my college classmate Barack Obama to keep it open years after promising to close it... I would argue that (1) and (2) are largely the same reason for American domestic consumption, and that the appearance of Neanderthal-like toughness by both George W. Bush, and later by Barack Obama, ends up being its own political reward (see "Kerry, John"). How would you respond?
John Hickman: I should note that the audiences being pitched to are a little different, depending on whether the person pitching was George W. Bush, or Barack Obama.
That said, the strands of the official narrative fit together nicely for a political decision maker. The narrative wasn't just a "two-fer"-- you get all three of the advantages I describe (a political spectacle of victory, and the public gets to feel avenged and the public still gets to believe "swift justice" will be affected). And furthermore, the various groups of administration officials participating in the Guantanamo decision-making each got something that they wanted, from the standpoint of "there's something in this for me too!"
Looking at Obama specifically, I can only conclude that he must be the kind of guy who pulls bandages off very slowly, so as to avoid even tiny amounts of pain! Viewed through this lens, rather than take on the most powerful (though obviously blatantly false) aspects of the narrative ("worst of the worst") directly, Obama and his people just side-stepped those. The unfortunate effect was that they seemed to implicitly endorse the rest of the narrative! That's part of the power of the original narrative-- even opponents are rightly afraid of it. In trying to avoid conflict, everywhere, Obama has dodged some of "the tougher" issues this way, even as he would be a far more effective leader had he been willing to accept more conflict.
The Talking Dog Same predicate as the previous question, but I would add, as a fourth real rationale for the GTMO project, the prisoners were used as a demonstration project for inserting the "national security wildcard wedge" firmly and permanently into American law; dividends have included "official state secrets" litigation privileges everywhere from lawsuits into improper surveillance of Islamic charities, to torture of GTMO prisoners (such as Binyam Mohammad) or others (such as Maher Arar), to improper eavesdropping on lawyers (the Wilner v. NSA suit for example), and, of recent post-Snowden history,to just about anything involving telecom interception... in that sense, the complete wildcard-- just say "terrorism" and "national security" and the need for the government to actually defend the merits of its own outrageous conduct in lawsuits disappears like magic... as an added bonus, we now have a possible model for brutal treatment for eventual use in the regular American penal system... or put another way, to me, the most compelling development in "the law" of the last dozen years did not involve any of the GTMO cases (Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, or Boumediene), but rather that of an American citizen named Jose Padilla (and a legal Qatari immigrant named Saleh al-Mari, to the same effect). It is now established law in at least one federal circuit (the Fourth Circuit based in Richmond) that the President can waive a magic wand called "national security" and arbitrarily incarcerate any citizen (or non-citizen) in a military brig for years, without recourse to the courts or Bill of Rights protections... that the Supreme Court didn't decide the issue that way but rather ducked the question in the name of "federal venue" is not comforting at all... but my question is how you would comment on the same legal geniuses (John Yoo, David Addington, etc.) who gave us "the torture memos" and the other rationales for detention policy in "the war on terror," and may well have used the term "legal black hole" for Guantanamo (while certainly cognizant of its unique "legal purgatory" status), and then later gave us Padilla, have now succeeded in degrading everyone's rights, to the point that at their core, our "rights" are best described as "privileges" or "allowances" the government affords to us rather than, well, "rights," and that THIS RESULT (much of which has been codified by "constitutional scholar" Barack Obama in such gems as the National Defense Authorization Acts), has become a situation that had never before the case [at least, as you have noted, for "non-savages" ... exceptions always seem to have been available as a historical matter for such people as Native Americans, whom the American state treated as second class at best.] I would argue that this was the signal achievement of Guantanamo Bay and post-9-11 American policy. Would you accept that as "an addendum" to your analysis, and if not, why not?
John HIckman: My response to that is "I don't know." I wish I had a clearer answer. As you frame it, did the architects of Guantanamo see it as a component of a larger, more powerful national security state? You make a compelling case that they did. Many worry about the erosion of liberty and due process rights since September 11th. In some ways, the national security state has expanded in ways we can't even detect. Snowden and the other recent leakers have revealed what was there, but what we apparently didn't and couldn't see-- as if chalk dust were sprayed over a previously invisible structure.
The American public—what I observe from my students, who may in turn be channeling their parents and the broader society—feels increasing unease about the growth of our "national security state"-- the level of surveillance, secrecy and departures from the rule of law are aspects they find more and more disturbing. People seem more aware of this-- perhaps as never before-- and I take a degree of hope from that.
The Talking Dog Certainly, to me, the most obvious and compelling "official lies" concerning Guantanamo involve the fact that "the high value terror suspects"-- Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and the supposed organizers of the September 11th attacks-- were in CIA "black sites" for years before abruptly and cynically being transferred to Guantanamo just in time to secure passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, thus completely putting the lie to the "intelligence gathering" or "worst of the worst" official rationales for GTMO prior to that time (again, to me). But the military commissions fiasco speaks for itself... far more prisoners have died at Guantanamo than have been convicted in its military commissions (I believe there have been four or five such convictions, all of whom are now legally suspect as they involved "war crimes" that weren't "crimes" at the time they were committed!) Clearly, the commissions have not "brought the perpetrators to swift justice," as over seven years after their arrival, even "the high value detainees'" cases are proceeding at a snail's pace at best. My question is, once again, rather than cynically intended as a subterfuge by Bush (and later, by Obama) to justify the project-- at least at the outset, would it not be fair to believe that the Bush people actually believed that the military people would roll-over and let them have their show-trials rather than actually behave as professionals and try to comport themselves within the law (whether reasonable or not... do you question whether this belief was sincere?)
John Hickman: What I will pull out of this rather long question is to ask and then answer the question of why the established, but false, narrative did not fall apart when the "high value detainees" were moved to Guantanamo, even though all of the elements of the factual basis for Guantanamo were obviously false. And the answer to this is a testament to the underlying strength of the narrative itself.
The "high value detainees" - one of my favorite expressions-- were moved there at the very moment the GTMO narrative was weakening. The high value detainees were moved to there to shore up the basis for the GTMO decision-- and the tactic worked. It was successfully employed to show that there were actual bad guys at Guantanamo!
That said, it certainly would have been preferable to hold real trials in real courtrooms in the United States of America. Both the rest of the world and the United States would have been better off for it. The law is a very good tool for the public solving of certain problems.
But what this episode showed is that even a liberal democratic national public can be led into a desire for vengeance: it's an extremely powerful desire.
Of course, what historical war crimes tribunals-- Nuremberg and Tokyo for example-- do successfully is leave an extremely powerful narration in the form of transcripts and trial evidence, as to show just who the good guys, the bad guys and the by-standers were. The decisions of such courts stand as authoritative statements of responsibility and as such prevent further conflict. In short, trials end disputes.
In the Guantanamo case, however, the military commissions set up were not likely to end up with those kinds of trial transcripts. And the original designers of the Guantanamo arrangement were probably very pleased with that. The Neo-cons and others in the Bush Administration had found a strategy that never ends disputes-- and as such, there remained a continuing motivation to pursue the policy they wanted, specifically, perpetual policing of the Middle East and environs by the United States.
The Talking Dog Is there anything I should have asked you but didn't, or anything else you believe my readers need to know about these subjects, or anything else you'd just like to add?
John Hickman: I think it would be extremely helpful to hold up any news story coming out of Guantanamo-- any news story at all-- and ask how it fits into the established narrative, and virtually any story coming out of Guantanamo should be suspect on first appearance, and subjected to this kind of analysis.
The Talking Dog On behalf of all of my readers, I thank John Hickman for that intriguing interview. Interested readers should check out Selling Guantanamo: Exploding the Propaganda Surrounding America's Most Notorious Prison.
Readers interested in legal issues and related matters associated with the "war on terror" may also find talking dog blog interviews with former Guantanamo military commissions prosecutors Morris Davis and Darrel Vandeveld, with former Guantanamo combatant status review tribunal/"OARDEC" officer Stephen Abraham, with attorneys David Marshall, Jan Kitchel, Eric Lewis, Cori Crider, Michael Mone, Matt O'Hara, Carlos Warner, Matthew Melewski, Stewart "Buz" Eisenberg, Patricia Bronte, Kristine Huskey, Ellen Lubell, Ramzi Kassem, George Clarke, Buz Eisenberg, Steven Wax, Wells Dixon, Rebecca Dick, Wesley Powell, Martha Rayner, Angela Campbell, Stephen Truitt and Charles Carpenter, Gaillard Hunt, Robert Rachlin, Tina Foster, Brent Mickum, Marc Falkoff H. Candace Gorman, Eric Freedman, Michael Ratner, Thomas Wilner, Jonathan Hafetz, Joshua Denbeaux, Rick Wilson,
Neal Katyal, Joshua Colangelo Bryan, Baher Azmy, and Joshua Dratel (representing Guantanamo detainees and others held in "the war on terror"), with attorneys Donna Newman and Andrew Patel (representing "unlawful combatant" Jose Padilila), with Dr. David Nicholl, who spearheaded an effort among international physicians protesting force-feeding of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, with physician and bioethicist Dr. Steven Miles on medical complicity in torture, with law professor and former Clinton Administration Ambassador-at-large for war crimes matters David Scheffer, with former Guantanamo detainees Moazzam Begg and Shafiq Rasul , with former Guantanamo Bay Chaplain James Yee, with former Guantanamo Army Arabic linguist Erik Saar, with former Guantanamo military guard Terry Holdbrooks, Jr., with former military interrogator Matthew Alexander, with law professor and former Army J.A.G. officer Jeffrey Addicott, with law professor and Coast Guard officer Glenn Sulmasy, with author and geographer Trevor Paglen and with author and journalist Stephen Grey on the subject of the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, with journalist and author David Rose on Guantanamo, with journalist Michael Otterman on the subject of American torture and related issues, with author and historian Andy Worthington detailing the capture and provenance of all of the Guantanamo detainees, with law professor Peter Honigsberg on various aspects of detention policy in the war on terror, with Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch, with Almerindo Ojeda of the Guantanamo Testimonials Project, with Karen Greenberg, author of The LeastWorst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days, with Charles Gittings of the Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions, and with Laurel Fletcher, author of "The Guantanamo Effect" documenting the experience of Guantanamo detainees after their release, to be of interest.
December 6, 2013, Invictus
Nelson Mandela passed away at 95.
The post-title could relate to a mediocre semi-bio-pic (of Mandela) with Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman of a couple of years ago... but I'd prefer relating it to this poem, by William Ernest Henley [a poem supposedly recited by Mandela himself during his long incarceration at South Africa's notorious Robben Island political prison]:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Mandela dies at a moment when he was, over a decade after he left office as state president of South Africa, still the most significant human being on the planet (Gorbachev is arguably the only other living person, in my view, even worthy of consideration for that title).
I may, one of these days, discuss his grace under fire, that a man incarcerated for the bulk of his life could nonetheless reconcile with, and actually forgive both the system that incarcerated him and its perpetrators, for the greater good. An exemplary man who genuinely lived his life larger than life... changed the world in the way we were meant to aspire to. Compare this man of grace, integrity, and the power of his character to those running our current era of corner-cutting and fear-mongering. One of these days.
For now, R.I.P., Madiba.
November 16, 2013, Pot pourri
It's Mrs. TD's birthday... so happy birthday to Mrs. TD!
The White House is "optimistic" the President can bounce back from the biggest opportunity for genuine positive transformation in American history flushed down the toilet in order to give us Mitt Romney/Newt Gingrich's Frankenstein monster of propping up health insurers by giving them public money "health care reform" and difficulties over the troubled roll-out thereof. Did we mention Michele O's college classmate Toni, an executive at the company involved in said roll-out? [The evidence is somewhat dubious here, actually... and as a college classmate of Mr. Obama myself, I can safely say that such a "relationship," by itself, is hardly evidence of much of anything... and let's face it... had "healthcare.gov" been a project of the NSA, you can be damned sure it would have had all possible money and resources thrown at it.]
Filipinos in the city of Tacloban aren't so optimistic about much of anything, as even the grim task of burying the dead as a result of the recent typhoon is proving overwhelming. All we can do from the other side of the world is watch, weep, and maybe contribute to our favorite international aid organization... but sadly, much of this is just beyond anyone's control.
As awful as the devastation of the ever-more "super-storms" is (and as, it seems, even Exxon Mobil, the Koch Bros., etc., don't even have the energy to put out quite as much global-warming-denial propaganda as they used to... or so it seems to me, anyway...) even if the host-city of UN climate change talks is also the host city for Big Coal's meeting... how convenient is that?
Say... where was I...?
Oh yes... something that might be far scarier than even global climate disruptions... it would be amusing if it were amusing, as some morons actually consider this ultimate doomsday monster "a solution" to said climate change issues, rather than, you know, talking about "sacrifice," or, good God!, lowering our "standard of living" (voluntarily)... that being, of course, good old "nucular power"... because... it's another week... and hence, another new record in radiation measured at good old Fukushima as a result of yet another new leak there... Here is "Anne Kaneko's Fukushima Blog"... a fascinating blog by someone (writing in English) nearby... seriously... you'all might just want to check in on Fukushima Prefecture on a regular basis...
In GTMO news... Candace and Andy are both chock full of "new developments," which are more in the realm of stuff that Candace, Andy and I have kind of known about for years, but about which the public is (finally) getting some more news...assuming anyone cares all that much...
Alrightie then... enjoy the rest of your weekend!
November 5, 2013, A penny for the Guy
Happy Guy Fawkes night. This year, it's also an election, where my fair city will finally be replacing Mayor Millionaire Mike Billionaire Mike Bloomberg with Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager.
Still recovering from Sunday's chilly NYC Marathon.., my 12th NYC finish and 37th marathon overall... perhaps 5 or 6 minutes faster than "the usual time" (and about that behind Pamela Anderson).
My political realization of the day: Barack Obama owes a great deal to Bob the Builder.
October 25, 2013, Coming attractions
Well, the President decided he was coming right here to Brooklyn, landing in (and tying up) our beloved Prospect Park, and giving a speech on his education shtick at a Brooklyn high school. No comment, really... the problem with education in this country is the federal government... Can a call for school uniforms be far behind?
Alrightie then.
An earthquake and tsunami hit near Fukushima, Japan... yes, that Fukushima... Because the fact that the nuclear plant is in deep trouble and could, you know, result in some "bad" outcomes (up to... oh... wiping out life in the Northern hemisphere)... but, since it's not being reported...
Seriously-- on that Fukushima thing? A few of our billionaire overlords really should get together and, as a service to humanity, buy up the waste from the four or five hundred nuclear power plants in the world, and clad the waste in stable material (it is technically doable-- just, you know, more expensive than dumping the crap in pools of water... except, of course, it wouldn't require perpetual electric power to maintain the cooling) and then finding somewhere geologically stable to dump the crap... and, of course, decommissioning every one of these nightmares ASAP... as ironic as it is, we can live with less electricity... we probably can't live with massive radiation releases... just saying...
And the Germans seem pissed that we are spying on them... it's not as if we can understand a freaking word... they talk in some foreign language...
Hey, I hear the Jets are over .500!
And the dog turns 51 (and Hillary Clinton turns 66)... tomorrow...
October 9, 2013, Fed Up
So the suspense is over... it's monetary bid'ness as usual, as the President nominates Federal Reserve Vice-Chair[wo]man, [Brooklyn-born-and-bred] Janet Yellen to be the next most important person on Earth Federal Reserve Chair[wo]man.
If you think Bernanke had a tough time improvising some way through the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent prolonged depression "Great Recession," Ms. Yellen will promptly have to deal with even bigger "too big to fail" banks, even more debt and derivatives everywhere, the ongoing playground urinating contest government shut down and the granddaddy of them all... the ultimate own-goal... the potential American default, now slated for around October 17th (although, ironically, not paying nearly a million federal workers because of "the shutdown" will have the bizarrely salutary effect of improving the Government's cash flow, so it may get an extra week or two before having to miss any legally required payments.)
Not to worry-- the answer to these, and all other woes, will be the magic bullet (yes, that's the term... "silver bullets" only either kill werewolves or contain Coors Light) known as creating currency through purchase of ever more dodgy debt "Quantitative Easing," and Ms. Yellen is not only with the program, she will "un-taper" and probably buy even more crap each month than Greenspan Bernanke did, and ultimately, stick the bill to the taxpayers (a declining number of people as full-time jobs fade away, and this trend will accelerate, in part, due to increased hiring costs caused by... Obamacare.)
The current fiasco of Republicans purporting to hold the nation hostage was set in motion by one Barack Obama... when he sold us out back in 2010 with the Bush tax cut extension (and I thought he was just doing what his backers wanted). I thought things were bad when I noted that extending the Bush tax cuts-- which would, and did, add trillions in cumulative deficit, without a concomitant increase in the debt ceiling was political malpractice. But "bad" was understating. Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for nothing was as gross an act of political malpractice as has ever been committed, and may, because this President has shown Republicans that he will always cave when push comes to shove, actually result in a calamitous "default" situation (which, btw, could be disastrous even absent an actual default if the interest the U.S. government has to pay on bond interest goes up significantly as a result of the perceived risk)... and it's entirely Obama's fault.
I can't say that enough times. And his present position-- holding the line that Newt Gingrich's Mitt Romney's health care plan is so sacrosanct that all else must be sacrificed to it--. is just stupid. Don't get me wrong-- the Republicans (to the extent you believe that all of this isn't just some giant kabuki to benefit financial interests who have placed huge bets on the chaos and that they are actually different from "the Democrats") are plenty stupid too.
And so there we have it-- two groups of stupid people (or one group, if you like) having a gigantic schoolyard "hold your breath" contest... Good luck to the rest of us. Because while I can't predict a "winner," I can sure as hell tell you who is going to lose.
September 18, 2013, Twelve years of blogging
Dear Lord, it's been a dozen years, to the day, since the first post on this blog. Where does the time go?
September 17, 2013, More bad stuff
John Cole gets right to it on "the national debate" after the D.C. Navy Yard shooting which left a dozen victims (plus the apparent perp) dead.
The national consciousness will, of course, "move on," like it always does. But this sort of thing seems to be happening more and more frequently.
And yes... it is because we are becoming a more crass and violent society at every level (starting with the rotting fish head at the top as he proposes another pointless war against someone somewhere, because his overlords in finance demand it), as we promote violence in every last corner of the world that we don't already occupy. And yes, it is because of our national perverse, one-off attitude toward private gun ownership (Second Amendment my ass... the rest of the Bill of Rights is now "optional"... this is the one we give a sh*t about?). And yes, it is because of a simultaneously failing economy and ever-increasing stress level. Note the victims so-far identified are in their 40's and up-- the workforce is aging, even as young people have fewer prospects. And finally, yes, it is because we consume most of the world's output of psychotrophic drugs; it is extraordinarily unlikely that an autopsy would not reveal large quantities of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds and God knows what else coarsing through the veins of the shooter.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along...
September 11, 2013, Once more... with feeling.
Because September 11th only comes once a year. It's only been a dozen years... indeed, I've been blogging for all of them... and yet, it all seems... so long ago when I got put out of my office a block from the WTC by the morning's events, which seem ever more a distant memory (though I was there), and yet, the perpetual underpinning of what America has become.
Ah... just a dozen years ago... back when things like the Bill of Rights seemed so... relevant. When it wasn't my college classmate (twelve years ago, a political non-entity in the Illinois state senate) and now, the President of the United States. the alleged Muslim socialist radical arch-liberal who used the occasion of this 9-11 Eve to propose murdering Syrian civilians himself in retaliation for Bashir al-Assad murdering Syrian civilians...
And today... a primary race in New York, to finally replace Mike Bloomberg, who was pretty much elected mayor a dozen years ago... because of 9-11.
Well... just saying... enough musing from me... happy 9-11 everybody.
August 24, 2013, Bad stuff
There seems to be nothing good to say about anything coming out of Syria, as the government of Bashar al-Assad [and his visible allies, Hezbollah and Iran and his less visible allies, Russia] and "the rebels" [a wild consortium, almost certainly sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and without doubt possibly the CIA], now accuse each other of unleashing a chemical attack on the Syrian city of Ghouta in the suburbs of Damascus, which is estimated to have killed well over 300 people and sickened thousands... as the Obama Administration deploys some U.S. naval vessels ever closer to Syria... for some inadequately explained reason, because direct American intervention in Syria would probably start World War III be bad.
This Grey Lady op-ed by Edward Luttwak suggests that a prolonged unpleasant bloody stalemate is the only outcome favorable to American interests (he certainly cautions against-- and rightly so-- American intervention in Syria), noting that the Islamist extremists likely to emerge after a "rebel" win are not favorable to American interests, nor would an Assad regime that relied on assistance from Hezbollah and Iran (and presumably, Russia.)
Really? REALLY? Have we learned NOTHING? The list of our misguided and utterly f***ing DISASTROUS interventions seems endless, be they of recent vintage such as in Iraq... Afghanistan... Libya... Somalia... and our less obvious involvement in places like Egypt, and Bahrain, not to mention slightly older adventures in Southeast Asia, Iran (back when we overthrew a democratically elected government to install the Shah), and of course, all over the Western Hemisphere.
In short-- Mr. Luttwak is correct that American intervention-- of any kind, for any reason (other than perhaps giving humanitarian aid to surrounding countries like Jordan that have to deal with refugees)-- would be "ill-advised." And somebody's use of chemical weapons is, alas, just not a good reason for American intervention. And the presence of U.N. weapons inspectors already in Syria at the time of the attacks and the attacks just a few miles from their hotel-- makes me wonder about whether the Assad regime is that stupid (hint... I don't think so, though it certainly might be). Naturally, other than the rebels themselves, it seems the United States government is arguing the loudest that it is the Assad regime (rather than "the rebels") that is responsible for the chemical attack. None of us can say for sure, but right now, the evidence is inconclusive at best, and what American officials get out of stirring this pot (other than some really sweet contracts for whoever gets to provide support for the presumed sh*tstorm they're trying create)... is a mystery, at least to me.
Anyway, as awful as it is, Syria is unlikely to have a liberal, democratic government any time soon. I tend to think that a stable, albeit unpleasant regime like Assad's would be far, FAR better than either an Islamist sh*t-hole state (see how well that one just worked out in Egypt, for example) or an unstable, corrupt semi-failed state resulting in ostensibly permanent anarchy and civil war (of the kind we have installed and unleashed in Iraq and Afghanistan). And this result would also be true for Israel, which, without doubt, wants stability on its Northeastern border, and would (presumably) prefer not to have an Islamist regime reminiscent of Hamas in control of an entire well-armed country.
At the end of the day, the Middle East is a tough neighborhood with no good prospects... American intervention in the region has achieved exactly zero unqualified successes (save arguably Israel's position as regional powerhouse... and even there, our support has not involved direct military intervention)... and getting involved in this one-- chemical weapons or not-- would be yet another bad idea.
Just saying.
Update (8-25-13): Syria will allow weapons inspectors full access to the site of the attack. Another strong hint as to its provenance... at least in my view. And yet... seeing as Assad's Syria is a client-state of, you know, Russia, I don't think American forces will be ordered to back off anytime soon.
August 21, 2013, Thirty-five years
That's the sentence handed down by a military court-martial to Bradley Manning for leaking evidence of the United States's war crimes and other acts of malfeasance. The idea is to deter others who might have the audacity to try to let the public know what their government is up to. Hell-- the government was arguing for an even longer sentence-- of sixty years or more, to assure that Manning would die in prison for having the audacity to tell the American people what their government and military are doing in their name with their tax money. Damn him.
Of course, it bears noting that our government recently begged a country headed by a former KGB Colonel to hand back one of our citizens, assuring Russia that we [probably] wouldn't torture Edward Snowden [too much].
Interesting times. Do you not think we're living in 1984, only maybe even "new and improved"? Well... reminds me (albeit tepidly) of how Candace [and to some extent, I] were muzzled by this Administration shortly after it assumed power.
But go ahead, alleged progressives, and tell me about "lesser of two evils" and all...
August 8, 2013, Exercises in Credulity-Defying
Well, this piece from WaPo sort of lays out the conventional wisdom (as WaPo is wont to do)... to wit, given that the majority of the poor bastards still held at GTMO hail from Yemen, and given that there is a purported "threat" coming from "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," allegedly based in Yemen, this will "complicate" the return of said Yemeni men to their home country, which of course, had been held up by Barack Obama for years now, in response to "the underpants bomber," but was supposedly "resumed" in response to the GTMO hunger strike. Of course, the Obama Administration, and every government agency asked to do so, has found that some 86 men at GTMO, many of them Yemeni, pose no threat whatsoever because they were NEVER terrorists of any kind... meaning... what freaking difference would it make to return men who were never part of al Qaeda to begin with to a country with a purported al Qaeda presence? (Stop with reality...)
Of course, the "credible threat" arising from "intercepted chatter" [that has led to the closing of around twenty-two diplomatic embassies and missions throughout the Islamic world] is, presumably, completely made up as a political stunt to get Congress to back off its recent efforts to rein in NSA spying on Americans. Of course, the scope of that spying is, surprise, surprise, broader than the government had been telling.
I say this because, and I admit its only IMHO... but I tend to think after all the trouble that OBL went through to make it hard to find him... that al Qaeda leadership is probably just not stupid enough to have a conference call... but, of course, in a nation that used to lead the world in most things and now leads it only in propaganda, the American people probably are stupid enough to believe that "the evildoers" would form a Legion of Doom on an easily intercepted open line.
You know, over a decade ago, on this very blog's "talking dog points," given former President George W. Bush's tendency to refer to "evil doers" and "war on terror" and "axis of evil" and the like, we pondered whether his National Security team (then led by Condi Rice) was briefing him with comic books... We have, of course, often quipped about how seamlessly, it seems, the Obama Administration has wholly adopted Bush Administration policies in everything important... such as the never-ending expansion of totalitarianism "the national security state..." but now even the asinine nomenclature and diction of the Bush Administration has trickled down to its worthy successors... in the Obama Administration.
And so... as my college classmate the President, who turned 52 a few days ago (happy birthday, Mr. President) petulantly tries to out-Bush Bush by reigniting the Cold War (over pique that a political dissident has fled from the United States to Russia!), by stepping up those killer robot drone strikes, by the ongoing war on whistleblowers in general, and by so many other Bush-like policies...
I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought. Kind of, you know, like the President did with that whole "close GTMO" thing. Sigh.
August 1, 2013, Unintended consequences... sort of...
It seems that uber-whistleblower and former contractor to the NSA Edward Snowden has, at least for the next twelvemonth, been given asylum in Vladimir Putin's Russia. Perhaps a September Obama-Putin summit will be canceled as a result of this... or perhaps it won't. Russia is obviously an irritant, along with Ecuador, Venezuela, Cuba and the few other countries flexing their independence from Washington's jackboot. Having both a nuclear arsenal and huge oil reserves, Russia can pretty much do what it likes... and has. Actual national sovereignty independent of the financial interests running most of the world: imagine that?
Let me make this easy for both you and my own NSA minders. Obviously, not only do I approve of the actions of Mr. Snowden (and Mr. Manning, who awaits sentence, and Mr. Assange, who is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and any of the other freedom-fighters out there who want to tell us what our own quite-literally-rogue-state government no longer wants to tell its own citizens), I applaud their actions, while readily admitting that I personally would almost certainly not have the courage to take the risks (probably lengthy prison terms) to do anything of the kind.
And so, I'll immediately juxtapose this news of Mr. Snowden's asylum with a great piece from James Fallows writing in the Atlantic,
"Why NSA Surveillance will be More Damaging than you think." The short answer to that is that business interests not forced by virtue of being here to operate in the United States will soon choose alternatives to doing so, be it local or regional networks not going through here, or other arrangements perhaps even of a lower tech nature, to avoid the prying eyes of the United States government and its contractors, because the United States has flushed its honest broker status, and heinously abused the exorbitant privilege of ostensibly hosting most of the backbone elements of the internet.
Here's the thing, boys and girls: not only is none of this shit going to keep us any "safer" from the mini-van or two worth of al-Qaeda operatives still in existence (and among others, Sen. Leahy evidently just concluded that the big phone thing accomplishes nothing of the sort), it wasn't designed to. It's designed to be used against specific kinds of targets: dissidents (animal rights activists, especially the kind who might take pictures of the activities of "agri-business" are prime examples), personal enemies of those in power (generally in the financial sector or the military), or, best of all, business interests whose secrets might prove extremely profitable to steal, particularly for American business interests under contract to do the snooping.
Oh... right... "foreign terrorists" doesn't seem to be on that list. Because everyone knows that terrorists operating in the poorest countries on Earth just this side of the stone-age are best thwarted using the world's most complex and sophisticated high-tech interception methods.
What... they're not? Uh oh...
July 14, 2013, Fear Factor
Was it that much of a surprise that George Zimmerman of Sanford, FL was acquitted in the homicide of Trayvon Martin? You'll recall that originally, police didn't even want to charge Mr. Zimmerman with killing Mr. Martin, who, after all, represented American society's ultimate bete noire, a young Black man. But, you know... the public outcry and all.
I'm not going to comment specifically on the case, or on the outcome. Indeed, this from the Atlantic says it more articulately than I ever could, noting essentially that "we wuzn't there..." Where the only living witness is the alleged perp, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" could be difficult to prove. And I wasn't even in the courtroom (nor did I follow the coverage); I've been in enough courtrooms where juries have done things that I've personally found inexplicable to add any value in commenting on this particular case... maybe it was just a tough case to prosecute... maybe the prosecution did a horrible job... don't know. [Candace, quoting Langston Hughes, comments even more articulately.]
No... I'll let the public outrage (on "both sides") play out elsewhere. I kind of want to "drill-down" into something else. I'm going to talk about Mr. Zimmerman himself, who I've found fascinating for any number of reasons. Mostly, I want to know just why this man was so scared shitless of everything that he felt the need to play Batman God, and be a well-armed homicidal vigilante volunteer neighborhood watchman... had this been the 1960's, when millions of middle class White people (including most of my own family) abandoned the ever scarier inner cities for the seeming peace, quiet and safety of the suburbs, driven by that force that is now embedded in the American DNA (though it was arguably less apparent then), that being, of course, fear, particularly, fear of "the other," I might have "understood." Clearly I'm missing something... perhaps it's that I live in the seemingly peaceable kingdom of a "mixed" (though just about fully gentrified) Brooklyn neighborhood, while most of my family remains in the suburbs, or even in points beyond... of course, the irony is that I can walk to places without fear of imminent death (mostly by being run down by cars)... and they can't.
Anyway... we find Mr. Zimmerman in an ostensibly "gated suburban community," as, fear (of something or other) seems to reside quite literally in his own bones, he being employed as an insurance underwriter and taking courses toward a junior college degree in criminal justice... but again, I'm just stuck on "reality" (it always gets in the way)... I just was not aware of gated suburban communities in Seminole County, Florida being hotbeds of violence by young Black men... one might think the word "Brooklyn," even gentrified Brownstone Brooklyn, would be more fear-inspiring... But... I guess I'm mistaken.
I admit that I try, superficially at least, not to live my own life in fear. After all, unlike most Americans, I found myself in downtown Manhattan on September 11, 2001, as I still do on most work days, within a football field's length or two of the WTC site... and yet, readers of any regularity know I am nonetheless an absolutist in Ben Franklin's "those who would give up their precious liberty for temporary security deserve neither..." I never accepted the need to become a totalitarian country (which, boys and girls, we have become) in order to "fight terrorism." I'm evidently in a small minority.
Hey, paranoia is patriotic. Obviously, on a macro-level, we are all supposed to fear the ever-lurking swarthy A-rab terrrrrrrrorists of al-Qaeda ... notwithstanding that OBL is dead and that AQ elements in Libya and Syria seem to be on American --or at least American allies'-- payrolls... on a less macro-level, White suburbanites, including presumably Mr. Zimmerman, are supposed to remain scared shitless ever vigilant against incursions by... young Black men. Even those evidently visiting their father, who happens to live in the same gated communities.
In some sense... who am I to talk? I can put on my own brave face, but if my own neighborhood were to see a spike in street crime... what would I do? [Fortunately, and I mean this, I live in a City where it's damned hard for me, and hence, for the George Zimmermans of the world, to get their hands on a gun... but I digress...] Indeed, I hide behind the anonymity of a pseudonym for this blog, as much from fear of possible adverse work implications as from fear of irritation by trolls and those who simply disagree with me. And why is that? Notwithstanding the supposed enlightened state of our democratic republic (for those who believe we have one in anything other than form), most people would certainly agree that the conditions under which most Americans earn their living are far stricter... our managers exercise virtually unfettered authority over us during the six or eight or ten or whatever hours a day of work that we perform, and we self-temper our work behavior (and, more and more, our off-hours behavior), lest we offend someone who might kill fire us, thereby cutting off not merely our self-esteem, but almost certainly, our access to health care, the ability to remain in our homes, or ultimately, to eat (let alone to live with any kind of personal dignity), and casting us to our fate in a country where actual unemployment (as opposed to the official propaganda rate) is, and for some time has been at, Depression era levels.
And I guess I'm going to point out that this fear (of starvation if wages are cut off) is more or less embedded in the very DNA of industrial capitalism... our basic needs can be met in comparatively few hours of work a day... capitalism requires that we generate " a surplus," promptly handed over to our betters who manage us accordingly (while taking the lions' share for themselves). Without going all "Occupy!" on you, my comment is not on the resulting distribution of money, but on the intrinsic distribution of power... in our supposed representative democracy, the basic attitude of our work life is, of course, fear... the fear of living in essentially totalitarian environments. And, surprise surprise, once duly primed, fear can easily make its way into everything else- i.e., the extremely politically useful fears-- such as fear of crime (notwithstanding that crime rates have been declining for years) resulting in an insane level of incarceration (particularly for men of color), or of course, fear of terrorism (notwithstanding its extraordinary rarity), or of course, as has been of note in the recent legislative theater of the absurd known as "comprehensive immigration reform," fear of Mexican people illegal immigrants, leading to various absurdities such as proposals to militarize our Southwestern border to levels comparable only to the border between the two Koreas.
And so, we have this ambient level of fear leading to Florida's outrageous "Stand your Ground" law, making it public policy to favor aggressive behavior likely to result in death... out of very politically useful fear.
With all this fear out there swirling around, including, of course, in the heads of the likes of physically slight, gun-toting, absolutely scared-shitless George Zimmerman hanging on in his suburban enclave ever more fearful of losing ground economically, or of course, giving way to all of the other litany of fears swirling around his head... and voila. Throw in all this fear, hundreds of millions of firearms, and the general racial unfairness in this society (temporarily papered over by the Presidency of not-actually-descended-from-slaves Barack Obama), and you get unfortunate events like the Trayvon Martin killing. Which, had it resulted in a prompt charge and guilty plea to something like involuntary manslaughter, wouldn't have generated much attention.
But the powers need the peasants to turn on each other (rather than their betters in the banking sector, military industrial complex, Monsanto, etc.)... and hence, the fear-mongering, the stand-your-ground-laws, the psychotic numbers of guns circulating...
I think you get the picture. Regardless of your views on the Zimmerman verdict... the picture is still not a pretty one.
July 4, 2013, TD Blog Interview with David Marshall
David Marshall is an attorney in Seattle, Washington, where his practice focuses on defense of those accused of child abuse. He represents a Syrian national detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On July 2, 2013, I had the privilege of interviewing Mr. Marshall by telephone. My interview notes, as corrected by Mr. Marshall, are below.
The Talking Dog: Where were you on Sept. 11, 2001, and to the extent you can answer, please tell me where your GTMO-detained client or clients were?
David Marshall: I was among the last people in America to find out! I first heard something peculiar when I was riding a bus to work. A couple of women on the bus were talking to each other, and one said "and that's when they closed all the airports." I thought, "that can't be right..." I got to work, and walked past a conference room where people were watching t.v.-- by that point, both towers had fallen down. I realized this was not going to be just another day. For whatever reason, even though I was in a sky-scraper, I don't recall even going home from work early.
The Talking Dog: Please identify your GTMO-detained client by name and nationality. To the extent you can, please tell me something about him, such as age, family status, personality, circumstances of capture, or anything else you believe of relevance.
David Marshall: My client is Syrian, and, although Arabic transliteration is not always perfect, I spell his name Ahmed Adnan Ajam. He grew up in Aleppo, Syria. His family was well to do. His father ran a textile factory (which was a business he apparently married into!) Ahmed was trained as an apprentice jeweler and goldsmith. When he was in his early twenties, a friend of his died in an automobile accident. This caused Ahmed to think about eternity. The free life he lived, he felt, was dissolute-- he wanted to get right with God and set about becoming more serious about Islam. He was widely read (as he still is), and he found about the society in Afghanistan that took Islam very seriously. He wanted to become a more devout individual, so he traveled to Afghanistan. He lived in Kabul for eleven months or so, and he did some charitable work with an organization that distributed food there, and he played soccer and volleyball and took walks around the city.
When the war broke out, he got word that the Northern Alliance was going to take the city, and it was planning on killing all of the Arabs. As he was an Arab, he left. He was seized while entering into Pakistan, and he was been in captivity since late 2001 or early 2002. He bears the designation "ISN 326." He is now in his mid 30's.
The Talking Dog Please tell me the status of his habeas litigation to the extent you can; if you can identify who the judge involved is, and please tell me about the recent motion you brought challenging the restrictions on transferring prisoners.
David Marshall: Ahmed's habeas case is pending before Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. No habeas hearing is scheduled.
I have just filed a motion challenging the restrictions on the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo imposed by the past three annual National Defense Authorization Acts. My contention is that this is an unconstitutional encroachment on the President's commander in chief powers. The President decides when to exert force (in an authorized conflict) and when to release or relax that force. Detention is a form of force. My client denies that he is an "enemy belligerent," but even if he were, the President would have the power to release him without Congressional restriction.
Ahmed has been cleared for release by this government-- the Obama Administration's inter-agency task force. Once the Executive Branch decided to release him, Congress had no right to interfere. By analogy, when President Bush decided to attack Fallujah, Congress could not interfere in his doing so, nor could they interfere with his later decision to withdraw from Fallujah by compelling him first to issue a certification that it was safe to do so.
The Bingham firm in Boston and New York has provided great assistance to me with this motion, but I am the sole signatory on the motion, and it is only on behalf of my client.
The Talking Dog Of course, you are asking for his outright release, but he can't go home to Aleppo, can he? Are you contending that Congress can't restrict his release into the United States?
David Marshall: It has been recognized by our government that the Syrians (of whom there are now about seven left at GTMO) can't be returned to Syria. The Assad regime would treat GTMO detainees very harshly.
The motion I recently filed does not challenge Congress's prohibition on admitting detainees into the United States. For reasons you can imagine, Ahmed does not care to live here; it has not been "the home of the free" for him. Our goal is for the Obama Administration to transfer him to a third country to live in peace and freedom there.
The Talking Dog: Can you please tell me the last time you visited your client or clients at Guantanamo?
David Marshall: I have not visited my client in 2013 (since the hunger strike and surrounding events have transpired). I'm not sure I would go at this point. Since my client regards the genital searches that are now imposed as a condition of visiting counsel as so extremely offensive to him, he might not be willing to meet me if I did go. I note that he recently didn't come to the phone when I called-- which I suspect is connected to something he said in his letter to me of May 17th, where he reported consternation that other prisoners had to be searched just to take phone calls from their attorney.
The Talking Dog Can you tell me if your client is participating in the present hunger strike?
David Marshall: In his 5/17 letter he wrote that he had ceased the hunger strike himself-- he could just not take the Ensure that he was being forced to consume. According to his letter, he has been placed in isolation, is not allowed exercise, and has intolerable noise inflicted on him.
The Talking Dog: Can you tell me, if you believe the recent events of escalating tension culminating in the hunger strike are the actions of the local command structure (however misguided), or perhaps reflect broader, high level decisions, for whatever reason?
David Marshall: I have no specific knowledge about this-- you know as much as I from reading newspaper accounts. I will say this seems to be a crazy policy that has precipitated a crisis that may ultimately redound to the benefit of the prisoners. Frankly, I can't see the Obama administration being so clever that they induced extreme actions from inmates knowing it would create the kind of political pressure that would culminate in closing the detention facility.
The Talking Dog: Can you comment on media coverage, in particular, of events at Guantanamo in calendar year 2013, and previously, and in particular, with respect to your own clients and representation?
David Marshall: It certainly appears that there has been a whole lot more media coverage this year because of the hunger strike. If it was planned as a means to get attention, it has been extremely successful.
The Talking Dog: Do you have any predictions for Guantanamo, preventive detention, and related issues for, say, the remainder of Barack Obama's Presidency?
David Marshall: I have no predictions. In late 2008 and early 2009, we all thought "thank goodness this will soon end" because of the election of President Obama. That experience has cured me of making predictions.
The Talking Dog: How did you become involved in representing a detainee, and can you tell me how your Guantanamo representation has effected you personally, be it professionally, emotionally, spiritually, or any other way you'd like to answer?
David Marshall: I became involved when the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers sent an e-mail in the summer of 2005 asking if there was interest in representing detainees. I expressed interest. Then a year went by, and in the summer of 2006, another e-mail went out saying "we're serious now", and this time noting that, unlike other pro bono cases, there was not only no compensation for the time to be expended, but no reimbursement for expenses which were likely to be substantial. I talked to my wife, and she agreed that this was important for me to do, and I undertook it. After a lengthy time to get my security clearance, by February of 2007 I was cleared to be Ajam's representative.
That is how I became involved; now I should tell you why. I'm a little older than you. I grew up at the height of the Cold War in the 50's and 60's. I learned that in the USSR, people were imprisoned indefinitely without trial. I was struck by how awful that was. I was glad I didn't live in a country that did that. Early in the last decade I realized I now do live in a country where that can happen. And so, in the interest of helping to get back to that country where that kind of thing cannot happen, I undertook this representation.
One thing that has surprised me is the level of support I have gotten from other people. I have asked for donations to help me cover the expenses of representation. I have been stunned by how many people responded and how much they donated (particularly relative to the means of the donors). I see there are many people who, like me, want to get that "other America" back-- the country that doesn't imprison people indefinitely without trial. I have been deeply touched by their generosity.
The Talking Dog: I join all of my readers in thanking Mr. Marshall for that compelling interview.
Readers interested in legal issues and related matters associated with the "war on terror" may also find talking dog blog interviews with former Guantanamo military commissions prosecutors Morris Davis and Darrel Vandeveld, with former Guantanamo combatant status review tribunal/"OARDEC" officer Stephen Abraham, with attorneys Jan Kitchel, Eric Lewis, Cori Crider, Michael Mone, Matt O'Hara, Carlos Warner, Matthew Melewski, Stewart "Buz" Eisenberg, Patricia Bronte, Kristine Huskey, Ellen Lubell, Ramzi Kassem, George Clarke, Buz Eisenberg, Steven Wax, Wells Dixon, Rebecca Dick, Wesley Powell, Martha Rayner, Angela Campbell, Stephen Truitt and Charles Carpenter, Gaillard Hunt, Robert Rachlin, Tina Foster, Brent Mickum, Marc Falkoff H. Candace Gorman, Eric Freedman, Michael Ratner, Thomas Wilner, Jonathan Hafetz, Joshua Denbeaux, Rick Wilson,
Neal Katyal, Joshua Colangelo Bryan, Baher Azmy, and Joshua Dratel (representing Guantanamo detainees and others held in "the war on terror"), with attorneys Donna Newman and Andrew Patel (representing "unlawful combatant" Jose Padilila), with Dr. David Nicholl, who spearheaded an effort among international physicians protesting force-feeding of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, with physician and bioethicist Dr. Steven Miles on medical complicity in torture, with law professor and former Clinton Administration Ambassador-at-large for war crimes matters David Scheffer, with former Guantanamo detainees Moazzam Begg and Shafiq Rasul , with former Guantanamo Bay Chaplain James Yee, with former Guantanamo Army Arabic linguist Erik Saar, with former Guantanamo military guard Terry Holdbrooks, Jr., with former military interrogator Matthew Alexander, with law professor and former Army J.A.G. officer Jeffrey Addicott, with law professor and Coast Guard officer Glenn Sulmasy, with author and geographer Trevor Paglen and with author and journalist Stephen Grey on the subject of the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, with journalist and author David Rose on Guantanamo, with journalist Michael Otterman on the subject of American torture and related issues, with author and historian Andy Worthington detailing the capture and provenance of all of the Guantanamo detainees, with law professor Peter Honigsberg on various aspects of detention policy in the war on terror, with Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch, with Almerindo Ojeda of the Guantanamo Testimonials Project, with Karen Greenberg, author of The LeastWorst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days, with Charles Gittings of the Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions, and with Laurel Fletcher, author of "The Guantanamo Effect" documenting the experience of Guantanamo detainees after their release, to be of interest.


text:
- In the English tradition, afternoon tea is served daily in the Lobby Tea Court. Consistently voted "Best Afternoon Tea" by the Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic readers, full tea includes finger sandwiches, scones with Devonshire cream and preserves, pastries and a selection of fine blends. Classical music provides a charming backdrop for a relaxing afternoon break. A Gluten-Free menu is available with advance notice.
Ask a local about Afternoon Tea - The Phoenician
Locals have answered 1 question about Scottsdale.
Ask Scottsdale Locals about Afternoon Tea - The Phoenician
- Details
- User Rating

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
Well it's finals week and I have probably consumed 6,000 calories in the past 2 days. Cool.
that awkward moment when you realize you're no where NEAR ready to be in a bathing suit
Well I just got on here for the first time in forever and I had about a million messages. I feel like it would be awkward to answer them after all this time… MY BAD YOU GUYZZZZ
You're supposed to learn something in every relationship you have; learn what you like; what you don't. Learn a little bit more about yourself, or how to compromise. You get an in-depth look into another someone's life, and through that, get to better understand your own.
It's no secret I…
I cannot seem to make myself try to lose weight. I look awful, and there is no way I'm going on Spring Break like this in March, let alone be able to relax and have fun with my friends when I know I'm the gross one in the group. They are all so happy and confident, and I'm nowhere near close to being able to love myself. A new semester is starting, and something has to change. The one boy I want more than I've ever wanted anyone will never give me the time of day if I look like this. I am in dire need of a lifestyle change, and it needs to happen NOW.
I don't want to be disgustingly thin; all I want is to feel good about myself for once.
I. Need. This.


text:
Donohue in Davos: Let's Put America Back to Work
Subscribe today for Free Enterprise Updates
- Latest business trends and best practices
- News about legislation and regulation impacting business
- Business how-to articles from industry experts
- Commentary and interviews with newsmakers in business and politics
Jan 28, 2011
U.S. Chamber President Tom Donohue took a quick timeout from meetings Davos this week to chat with French 24 this afternoon. He repeated his message from the recent State of American Business address, that there are many unanswered questions that must be addressed before companies will start aggressively hiring. Over the next year, the Chamber's number one priority will be to turn this economic recovery into a jobs recovery so that we can start putting Americans back to work.


text:
Institute of Financial Services NYSE Euronexy (LIFFE) - London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange LME- London Metal Exchange Metal Bulletin NYMEX - New York Mercantile Exchange Sustainable Development International publishers of Sustainable Development Online FinanceWise - the dedicated financial search engine
Top of page
© 2013 Woodhead Publishing Limited Woodhead Publishing Limited, 80 High Street, Sawston, Cambridge, CB22 3HJ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 499140 Fax: +44 (0)1223 832819 Email: Registered in England No. 2395953. Registered office: as above. VAT Reg No GB 538 2109 53. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced or copied without permission from Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Home Search Index of titles New & Forthcoming titles Site Map Privacy and cookies Links Contact us
Food Science/Food Technology/Nutrition Materials Engineering Textile Technology Environmental Technology Finance/Commodities/Investment Mathematics Oily Press Biomedicine
Chandos Publishing Home Chandos Publishing titles


text:
Ladybird Baby Girls Set (8 Piece)
- Price
- £17.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
- Next day delivery available
1 reviewLadybird Baby Girls Set with Sleepsuit, Bodysuit, Pants, T-Shirt, Hats, Bib and Mitts
Welcome a new delivery with this great-value 8-piece baby girls clothing set from the Ladybird collection. In cosy cotton fabric, this great-value pack contains a romper sleepsuit, full-length bodysuit, pants, t-shirt, bib, 2 hats and a pair of mitts.
Spots, stripes and a cutesy cat theme makes this baby girls clothing set a sound selection for your little one. This pack is also a great gift option for new or expectant parents. The hats and mitts are snuggly winter warmers, while the other clothing will translate well throughout the seasons.
Useful info:
- Baby girls set from Ladybird
- Great-value 8 piece
- Basic clothing for baby girl
- Cosy cotton fabric
- Great baby shower gift
Ladybird Girls Bunny Set (2 piece)
- Was
- Was £10.00
- Now
- Now £6.00
- Save £4.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
- Next day delivery available
1 reviewLong sleeve top with pull on jersey pants.
Colour: Pink Multi. Cotton. Machine washable. -
Ladybird Baby Girls Robin Print Set (2 Piece)
- Was
- Was £10.00
- Now
- Now £6.00
- Save £4.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
1 reviewLadybird Baby Girls Robin Print Top and Pants Set
Get your little one's Christmas clothes organised with this adorable baby girls robin top and pants set from the Ladybird collection.
In cosy cotton, this great-value 2-piece features a cute robin print to the front of the long-sleeved top, while the pull-on jersey pants fit easily for a comfortable and colourful ready-made outfit. Contrast sleeves and subtle ruche detail to the shoulders adds dainty definition, while an elasticated waist promotes adjustability.
A snuggly cardigan and pair of ballerinas or booties can be matched with this top and pants set for baby girls to complete the look.
Useful info:
- Baby girls top and pants from Ladybird
- Great-value 2 piece
- Robin print
- Pull-on pants
- Jersey cotton fabric
- Christmas baby clothes
Converse Baby Girls Cotton Booties Set (2 Pack) - 0-6 months
- Price
- £10.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
- Next day delivery available
2 reviewsConverse Baby Boys Cotton Booties with Chuck Taylor Badge Logo
Before she takes his first steps, keep her feet cosy and stylish with this 2 pack of Converse baby girls cotton booties.
While she'll no doubt be running around donning the iconic Converse plimsolls in a couple of years time, these booties are an adorable downsized version to start her off on a stylish stride. This pack includes a white pair and a pink pair. Printed laces and the classic Chuck Taylor badge logo detail add authentic finishing touches. Well-presented in a gift box, this 2 pack of baby booties makes a great gift for new or expectant parents.
Match with a Converse all in one or a smock dress and leggings to complete her cute look.
Useful info:
- Baby girls booties from Converse
- 2 pack; white and pink
- Printed lace and sole detail
- Chuck Taylor badge logo
- Presented in gift box
- Great gift idea
- Baby shower present
- Baby footwear - 0-6 months
Ladybird Girls Rabbit Heart Hooded All in One
- Price
- £12.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
- Next day delivery available
1 reviewLadybird Girls Rabbit Heart Fleece All In One with Hood Ears
Sweet and snuggly, this baby girls fleece all in one from the Ladybird kids clothing collection features applique detail and hood ears for an adorable animated finish.
With a big heart to the front, this pink baby girls fleece all in one has an abundance of character. There are even paw prints on the soles of the built-in booties! Your little one will love the bright colours and you will adore how cute she looks.
Useful info:
- Baby girls all in one from Ladybird
- Fleece fabric
- Applique detail
- Hood ears
- Built-in booties
- Zip-front fastening
- Popper button to top
- Baby clothing
Ladybird Girls Mouse Knitted Jumper Dress and Hat (2 Piece)
- Was
- Was £15.00
- Now
- Now £8.00
- Save £7.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
0 reviewLadybird Girls Mouse Knitted Jumper Dress and Hat with Ears
Knitted from cosy cotton, this little girls jumper dress and hat set from the Ladybird kids clothing collection is a snuggly selection for her everyday casual attire. While she may be too young to make heads or tails of fashion, she'll absolutely adore the cute mouse design on the front of the dress.
Whether she's as quiet as a mouse watching films at home or out and about playing in the park, this girls jumper dress provides sumptuous comfort throughout the day. The coordinating striped hat features 3D mouse ears that your little one will be enthralled by. A sweet heart to the centre of the knitted jumper dress is a lovely touch and the candy colour palette and stylish stripes define the design for a gorgeous girly finish.
To put together a fun, fashionable outfit, you can team this lovely jumper dress outfit for little girls with leggings or tights and a nice pair of plimsolls.
Useful info:
- Girls knitted jumper dress and hat from Ladybird
- Great-value 2 piece
- Cosy cotton for comfortable fit
- Knitted for snugness
- Mouse design with heart
- Stripe hat with ears
- Ready-made casual outfit
Ladybird Baby Hooded Cotton Cardigan with Bear Ears
- Price
- £14.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
- Next day delivery available
12 reviewsLadybird Baby Hooded Cotton Cardigan with Bear Ears and Pockets
This snuggly baby hooded cotton cardigan from the Ladybird collection has bear ears on the hood for extra cuteness appeal. In sumptuously soft fabric and a lovely pastel pink, blue or white palette, this cardigan is the perfect warm layer.
The bear face hood, complete with fun 3D ears, has an abundance of character that your little one will absolutely adore. This baby cotton cardigan will keep them as snug as a bug in a rug throughout the day. Whether this is a purchase for your own baby or a present for expectant parents, this bear ears zip-up cardi is a charming choice. Clothing sizes are available for newborn babies up to 18 months of age.
For a cool coordinated look, you can team this baby hooded cardigan with a comfortable pair of cotton pants, a cute top and plimsolls or trainers.
Useful info:
- Baby hooded cardigan from Ladybird
- Cosy cotton fabric
- Pockets to the front
- Zip-up design
- Ribbed sleeves and hem for warmth
- Bear ears to hood for fun design
- Casual clothing for babies
Ladybird Girls Hooded Toggle Coat - Pink
- Was
- Was £16.00
- Now
- Now £12.00
- Save £4.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
- Next day delivery available
0 reviewLadybird Girls Hooded Toggle Coat with Hearts
Keep her warm in sweet style with this little girls pink hooded coat from the Ladybird kids clothing collection.
The gently flared swing shape is extra stylish, while toggle buttons add heritage appeal to the design. She'll love the fun girly hearts to the front and you can rest assured that she's warm and comfortable. Satin lining provides a luxurious finish.
Match this little girls coat with a long-sleeved tunic dress, leggings and bow boots to complete her outfit.
Useful info:
- Girls coat from Ladybird
- Toggle fastening; heritage appeal
- Hearts detail
- Hooded
- Swing style
- Ruches to shoulders
- Satin lining
- Warm winter coat
Ladybird Baby Girls Star Zip Hoodies (2 Pack)
- Was
- Was £14.00
- Now
- Now £11.00
- Save £3.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
1 reviewLadybird Baby Girls Zip Hoodies with Retro Stars
Stylish and snuggly, this lovely 2 pack of little baby girls zip hoodies from the Ladybird kids clothing collection is a cute casual choice for your little ones everyday comfortable outfits. With bright colours and a retro star print, these hoodies are a shining example of how to beautify wardrobe basics.
While the plain girls hoodie is a simple staple item for her everyday attire, the star print jumper stands out with shimmering retro style to make a fun fashionable impact. Pockets to the front define the design and the zip fastening allows easy changing. These cosy cotton baby girls hoodies are designed to provide all-day comfort for active little ones.
For a cute casual outfit, you can team these baby hoodies with their jeans or joggers and a nice pair of trainers.
Useful info:
- Baby girls hoodies from Ladybird
- Great-value 2 piece
- Star print and plain
- Retro style
- Cosy cotton fabric
- Casual clothing for babies
Ladybird Girls Special Occasion Dress
- Price
- £18.00 to £20.00
- In Stock
- Delivery
- Next day delivery available
16 reviewsLadybird Girls Dress with Bows and Ribbon Detail
She'll be pretty in pink donning this delightful special occasion dress from the Ladybird kids wear range that features lovely layers and bow detail. This is the perfect pick for a baby or little girl to wear for a special occasion like a wedding or formal party.
Satin-look straps and beautiful bows on the top of the girls dress bring some dainty design to the look. A netted layer with a mesh overlay gives this girls dress fabulous flounce that's extra flattering. This is a charming choice for a party dress and is even lovely enough to be a bridesmaid dress or flower girl outfit.
This girls dress would go great teamed with a flower corsage headband and white sandals or shoes for a lovely smart outfit with formal flair.
Useful info:
- Girls dress from Ladybird
- Satin-look straps and bows
- Ribbon detail near the hem
- Mesh overlay and netted layer
- Baby and little girls occasion wear
Long sleeved bodysuit featuring frill detail to collar, chest and back, emboridered pony branding to chest, three button fastening to neck and popper fastening to body and legs.
Colours: Pink, White. Cotton. Machine washable.Longsleeve penguin placement print jumper with spot contrast sleeves. Button fastening at neck.
Colour: Pink. Cotton. Machine washable.


text:
7 Banks Partner To Build Habitat Homes In Queens, Harlem
Citigroup, Credit Suisse First Boston, HSBC, PNC Bank, Wachovia and Washington Mutual have partnered to build Habitat for Humanity homes in Queens and Harlem for the Financial Services Roundtable's "Community Build Day 2005." The building activity kicked off on August 5 in Jamaica, with a team of employee volunteers led by senior executives from the participating financial services companies and Habitat for Humanity New York. The day began with Steve Bartlett, president and chief executive officer of the Financial Services Roundtable, presenting Roland Lewis, executive director of Habitat for Humanity New York, with a grant check for $52,500 made possible by all the financial services companies participating in the New York City builds. On August 13, designated "Community Build Day 2005," these same companies brought together more employee volunteers to help build a Habitat home in Harlem.
"Community Build Day demonstrates to the public how the financial services industry works 365 days a year to improve the cities which they serve," Bartlett said. "The member companies of the roundtable are competitors in the marketplace, but this day shows our cooperation in the community."
Lewis said: "Habitat–NYC is pleased that so many prominent New York City financial institutions have crossed corporate lines to support the cause for decent and affordable housing for all New Yorkers."
"Our partnership with Habitat is a natural one since we share with them a mission to foster homeownership," Jennifer Armstrong, Citigroup Global Consumer Group senior director of retail banking North America, who is also a member of the Habitat for Humanity New York board of directors, said. "Habitat helps give people the tools they need to succeed—the financial education, access to financial products and services, affordable mortgages, and a helping hand through volunteerism—and we are very pleased to partner with our financial services industry colleagues to support these efforts."
"Credit Suisse First Boston is proud to have the opportunity to participate in our first Community Build Day," Bob O'Brien, managing director of Credit Suisse First Boston, said "Habitat for Humanity has been a great partner that enables our employees to provide both a needed resource to the community and volunteer in a very rewarding way working alongside family partners. We're pleased to deepen our relationship with Habitat through the Community Build Day and look forward to joining our banking colleagues in future efforts."
"HSBC is proud to join once again with our colleagues and our peers in giving back to a community that gives so much to us," David Kotheimer, senior executive vice president of HSBC Bank USA, said. "The Community Build Day effort and our partnership with Habitat for Humanity underscore the tremendous good that results when the private and public sectors join with the not-for-profit community to bring about meaningful change."
"It is always rewarding to see the families we help through partnerships with organizations like Habitat for Humanity," Don Giffen, chief executive officer of PNC MultiFamily Capital, the affordable housing group at PNC, said. "Through PNC Bank's affordable housing activities, we get to see firsthand the impact investments like these can have on a community."
"With this event, financial services companies put competition aside and focus on something we all care about: helping families achieve the dream of home ownership," Wachovia North Atlantic Regional President Jim Fitzgerald said. "This build is just one example of Wachovia's commitment to strengthening New York City's communities."
"We are proud to join Habitat for Humanity and other members of the banking community to help to make the dream of homeownership a reality for New Yorkers," John Benevento, senior vice president and group manager of Washington Mutual's retail branch network in Manhattan, The Bronx, Westchester, Connecticut and Long Island, said. "Community Build Day 2005 will be a great way a host of organizations will come together and provide hands-on support for affordable housing initiatives."
This year marks The Financial Services Roundtable's fourth annual "Community Build Day." As part of this day of community service, 38 roundtable member companies have committed to help build and repair homes in 22 cities across the United States in partnership with Habitat for Humanity, NeighborWorks® America, and Rebuilding Together. Serving as chairman for "Community Build Day 2005" is Frederick W. (Rick) Geissinger, chairman and chief executive officer of American General Financial Services. National Co-Sponsors are: ACE INA, AEGON USA, American General Financial Services, Citigroup, Countrywide Financial Corporation, HSBC—North America, MBNA America, Raymond James, State Farm® Wachovia, Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo.
Participation in "Community Build Day" is one part of a commitment to community involvement that FSR member companies make. In FSR's latest Community Involvement Survey, financial services companies donated or raised nearly $1.11 billion in direct charitable contributions, and employees donated 9.2 million volunteer hours, the equivalent of more than 4,600 full-time employees.
The Financial Services Roundtable represents 100 of the largest integrated financial services companies providing banking, insurance, and investment products and services to the American consumer.
Habitat for Humanity International, based in Americus, Ga., is a Christian ministry dedicated to eliminating poverty housing. By the end of 2005, Habitat will have built its 200,000th house and more than one million people will be living in Habitat homes they helped build and are buying through no-profit, zero-interest mortgages.
New York Habitat for Humanity "mission is to build community by constructing homes for ownership with people with low to medium incomes. The Habitat for Humanity building method—using sweat equity, abandoned land bought for $1, and volunteers to do much of the construction—makes it possible to build low-cost homes with New Yorkers in need.


text:
Progressive Community
The press releases posted here have been submitted by
America's Progressive Community
For further information or to comment on this press release, please contact the organization directly.
Most Popular This Week
- Journalist Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'Pathetic' American Media
- Anti-GMO Campaigners Claim Victory as 'Monsanto Protection Act' Stripped From Senate Bill
- Dream Team: Scahill, Greenwald Investigating NSA Role in US 'Assassination Program'
- People Want Full Medicare for All
- Crisis at Fukushima Continues to Spiral With Hole in Radiation Barrier
Today's Top News
CONTACT: Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Alan Barber, (202) 293-5380 x 115 |
Statement on the President's Jobs Summit
WASHINGTON - December 2 - Center for Economic and Policy Research Co-Director Dean Baker issued the following statement on President Obama's upcoming jobs summit:
"It is encouraging to see the Obama administration return its focus to job creation. The stimulus bill passed last February was an important factor in stopping the steepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office indicates that the ARRA of 2009 may have been responsible for creating as many as 1.6 million jobs, lowering the unemployment rate by as much as a full percentage point."
"Nonetheless, the downturn has been markedly worse than was predicted last winter. The unemployment rate is at an unacceptably high level and is now projected to remain high long into the future, remaining in double digits for most of 2010, and not falling below 7.0 percent until late 2012. President Obama has rightly decided that this baseline is unacceptable."
"There are four steps that can be taken to reduce the unemployment rate quickly:
1. Flexible employment credits to allow employers to shorten work hours instead of laying off workers: Each month, employers are laying off close to 2 million workers. If the government gave employers tax credits to shorten work time while leaving pay unchanged, it could reduce these layoffs. If the number of layoffs fell by just 10 percent, this would have the same effect on employment as adding 200,000 jobs a month or 2.5 million a year. Germany has used this mechanism to keep its unemployment rate from rising, even though it has experienced a steeper recession than the United States.
2. Support for education, health care and other vital state and local government services: Under budget pressure, state and local governments across the country are cutting these services and laying off workers. Aid from the federal government can allow these workers to keep their jobs and services to continue to be provided.
3. Direct job creation: There are parts of the country where the unemployment rate now exceeds 25 percent, with youth unemployment well above 40 percent. To prevent a generation of young people from being locked out of the job market, it is important to have public service jobs that can employ people immediately.
4. Right to rent for homeowners facing foreclosure: If homeowners facing foreclosure had the right to remain in their homes as tenants paying the market rent for a substantial period (5-10 years), it would provide substantial housing security to millions of families while stemming the nation's rising number of foreclosures. This policy could also provide an economic boost since it would free up money for millions of homeowners who are now struggling with mortgage debts that they cannot pay. This would in turn lead to a boost in consumption that would increase demand in the economy."
"These steps would go far in reducing layoffs, fostering job growth and giving relief to the millions of Americans suffering as a result of the economic crisis."
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...