Posts by Onnesha Roychoudhuri

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is a San Francisco based freelance writer. A former assistant editor of AlterNet.org, she has written for AlterNet, The American Prospect, MotherJones.com, In These Times, Huffington Post, Truthdig, PopMatters, and Women's eNews. She can be reached at onneshatao@gmail.com.

Making Justice Moot
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 6, 2006 at 12:43 PM.

Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdul Al-Hakim have been held in Guantanamo since 2002. Natives of China’s Xinjiang Uighur Region, it wasn’t until March of 2005 that it was acknowledged that they were not "enemy combatants." Because they face persecution in China, it was determined that the men should not be returned to their home country.

For over a year, Qassim and Al-Hakim were kept in Guantanamo while U.S. authorities looked for a third country to send them to. But they didn't seem to be in much of a hurry. Both men were still in Cuba this past December when a federal judge ruled that it was unlawful to continue their indefinite imprisonment.

Qassim and Al-Hakim’s have been kept in Guantanamo until just this Friday when they were released to Albania. Why the sudden action? Oral arguments for Qassim and Al-Hakim’s legal challenge to their detainment were scheduled in the Supreme Court for this Monday.

True to their manipulative relationship with the courts, the DoJ just this Friday filed an "Emergency Motion to Dismiss as Moot" the appeal. The six page document is worth reading in full [PDF]. Again, as with most legal requests to keep something from the courts, the DoJ tone is one of pompous self-righteousness. Rather than focusing on why they believe the case to be moot, the DoJ seeks a pat on the back for getting around to releasing the men:

…the Executive Branch has engaged in extensive diplomatic efforts to transfer petitioners to an appropriate country where they will be released for resettlement and treated humanely. These efforts have faced strong diplomatic opposition. The strenuous diplomatic efforts of the United States have persisted, nonetheless, and have now come to fruition…

The Albanian Government has assured the United States that petitioners will be treated humanely, and that they will not be subjected to involuntary transfer to their native country. In Albania, petitioners are being provided food, clothing, financial assistance and telephone access. As applicants for refugee status, they will be free to travel around Albania.

Well. There you have it. What more could you want after being plucked from your country, illegally detained and subject to abuse for four years?

The DoJ’s Motion states,

Given petitioners’ release, this case is now moot. The relief petitioners’ sought -- release from custody -- has now been effectuated. Thus, there is no more live case or controversy and the matter should be dismissed as moot. Because of the timing of this motion (which could not be filed until petitioners’ release had been effected)… we are filing this as an emergency motion…

Regardless of the release of the detainees, this flagrant manipulation to scuttle the case makes it both live and highly controversial. The Supreme Court recently dealt with a similar situation in the case of Jose Padilla. Though the DoJ won out, some of the justices expressed concern over the government's disrespect for the courts. Let’s hope this time, the Court chooses to push back. Hard.

Dirty words in politics
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 5, 2006 at 3:08 PM.

Michael Crowley over at TNR gives us a look-see at the latest RNC fundraising email:

This year, we face another momentous choice. Fight and defeat the terrorists, or retreat from the central front in the War on Terror. Live up to our calling as Americans to stand for freedom, or choose Democrats, who have been clear that they will censure and impeach the President if they win back Congress.

Yes. Freedom vs. impeachment -- that age-old dilemma.

With all those focus groups and political consultants mulling around D.C., you'd think they could deliver something a little more stirring. But let's be honest: We're not getting much better from high-level Democrats (er… "Real Security"?).

The credibility gap in Washington is so wide, you'd have to have your back against a wall not to fall into the yawning chasm. One need look no further than the Stephen Colbert craze to realize that people are starved for someone to speak to the obvious: we are lied to on a regular basis because the president views "facts" as mutable puzzle pieces to be ignored, rearranged, or embellished to further an agenda.

Colbert couched his truth in humor, but politicians tend to neuter their outrage or beliefs with empty patriotism and security speak. Over the past four years, I've developed a visceral contempt towards any politician who exploits words like freedom, evil, democracy, security, and terrorism. Yes, the nebulous concepts of freedom, democracy, and security seem great. And yes, evil and terrorism seem bad. But, what do you mean when you use those words?

One of my old English teachers conducted an exercise in which she had each student present on a topic they were passionate about. As we spoke, she would tell us to stop using certain words we were repeating. Stutter. Pause. Think. Without crutch words, you're forced to rethink what you're trying to say, and work to reclaim meaning. If subjected to the same exercise, what words would Ken Mehlman and Harry Reid have left?

The problem with expansive and bastardized words like "freedom" is that they don't inherently express a specific meaning. They have to be qualified. Maybe those words appeal to campaign managers and pollsters because, with such broadly positive or negative connotations, they're thought to capture the attention of the broadest swath of Americans.

But it's a thin line between a politically-inclusive message and empty rhetoric. Everybody knows someone who exemplifies this vacuous quality: That person who is intent on being liked, and thinks the way to do this is to avoid offending anyone at all costs. But oftentimes, despite being incurably friendly and seemingly pleasant, you develop a seething disdain for them. They're at all the social gatherings, nodding gravely when serious topics are broached, laughing at the right moments, but always needing to freshen a drink or use the facilities when called upon to offer their own opinion.

You just can't appeal to everyone, and if that's your main goal, you're going to fail.

In the end, trying to keep everyone happily misinformed during a war didn't work out for the Bush administration. Americans have learned not to trust the manipulation and over-simplification of Bushspeak. A full 67 percent of Americans that think this president is doing a crappy job. It has paved the way for someone to fill the credibility gap. I'd like to see a politician campaign on something, anything other than "defeating the terrorists" and "spreading freedom" throughout the world. And so would the majority of Americans.

Enron still wreaking havoc
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 3, 2006 at 11:36 AM.

With Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling currently in trial, and the former Enron headquarters empty, you might be tempted to think the old corporate monster has been vanquished. But you would be wrong: There is still the fallout to be reckoned with.

On Monday, The Seattle Times reported on the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) which has been fighting Enron over the inflated electricity rates during the West Coast energy crisis. Enron creditors are looking to get Snohomish PUD to pay over $100 million in contract cancellation fees and seeking to pay "22 cents on the dollar for $40 million in overcharges that the PUD claims were caused by Enron's market manipulation." That would mean that Snohomish residents could be looking at a 25 percent increase in electricity rates.

Enron lobbyists have approached a group of senators that have been fighting on PUD's behalf, asking them to back off. The senators have written the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to oppose a settlement under these terms. This letter may just end up on the desk of Phil Moeller -- a recent nominee to a FERC vacancy. As The Seattle Times notes, "It could be an awkward issue for Moeller because Lay recommended him for FERC in early 2001 in a letter to the George W. Bush transition team."

Yesterday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) filed a FOIA request to FERC -- asking for the release of hundreds of hours of tape recordings between Enron officials. The FERC's ongoing Enron investigation has uncovered many recordings that remain sealed. Truly dastardly: Enron's proposed settlement with FERC regarding PUD would "require FERC staff to work to prevent the release of Enron evidence that remains sealed."

That evidence is important because it could prove instrumental in future crafting of federal policies on trading in energy commodities. Senator Feinstein writes,

It's now clear that fraud and manipulation were a major part of the West Coast energy crisis in 2001. Thirty-two companies have already pleaded guilty or settled $6 billion in claims. Yet, many of the same traders who rigged the market are still trading energy commodities," Senator Feinstein said.

As an example, according to media reports, one of the Enron traders who booked $750 million in natural gas contracts in 2001, subsequently started Centaurus Energy, a hedge fund company that trades energy commodities. When he was asked during a deposition about whether he had ever manipulated the Western energy markets while at Enron, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer. This man was never prosecuted, and is now trading energy commodities that are not subject to federal oversight.

Senator Cantwell adds,

The American people have a right to know the full extent of Enron's schemes to exploit consumers and steal millions from Western ratepayers. Keeping hundreds of hours of audiotape locked away will make it more difficult to prevent this kind of massive rip-off in the future.

Let's hope they succeed, because we're not getting an further insight from Ken Lay (unless you count a more concrete picture of the depths of his greed) who recently took the stand.

Here's a snippet from the proceedings:

Lay spent nearly $200,000 in February 2001 to charter a boat named "Amnesia" to celebrate his wife's birthday. In April, he spent $12,000 to go to a resort to celebrate his birthday, he said.

"My birthday was cheaper than my wife's," Lay joked.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Guantanamo detainees will be released...
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 2, 2006 at 3:22 PM.

Just last week, we heard that the Pentagon was planning to release 141 prisoners who were determined to "pose no threat"

But now, the NY Times reports this:

"The Pentagon has no plans to release any detainees in the immediate future," said a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon of the Navy. He said the negotiations with foreign governments "have proven to be a complex, time-consuming and difficult process."

The negotiations are in regards to assurances that detainees will not be tortured when repatriated. The sudden concern for human rights is apparently based on State Department pressure:

According to a State Department human rights report released in March, the Saudi authorities have used "beatings, whippings and sleep deprivation" on Saudi and foreign prisoners. The report also noted "allegations of beatings with sticks and suspension from bars by handcuffs."

Hunh. That sounds familiar. Guantanamo detainees have been enduring this and worse while being held at the base in Cuba. But as the State Department wrings its hands over human rights, many Guantanamo prisoners are in such a dire condition psychologically that they are repeatedly trying to commit suicide.

The State Department is calling for "clear assurances that the prisoners will not be tortured and will be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law, and that those pledges can be verified." That has led to a stalemate in terms of "how those commitments should be formalized and monitored." (Note that there is no such concern about the assurances that the CIA supposedly gets on those it sends to "black sites" around the world.)

It looks like the State Department is trying to flex some muscle here, and the Pentagon is happily dragging its feet. What incentive do they have, after all, to allow detainees (the majority of whom are innocent judging by the DoD's own stats) illegally held and tortured for over four years, to speak freely?

"My Guantanamo Diary," written by law student Mahvish Khan, ran the same day as the NY Times article. It's a great first-person account of her experience as a translator for lawyers in Guantanamo, and brings some humanity to the all-too abstract notion of the war on terrorism.

Some excerpts:

I've now been down a total of nine times. And each time, I'm struck by the ordinariness of Guantanamo Bay, the startling disconnect between the beauty of the surroundings and the evil they mask…I've listened to Wali Mohammed protest that he was just a businessman trying to get along in Taliban-run Afghanistan. I've watched Chaman Gul, crouched in his 7-by-8-foot cage, weep for fear that his family will forget him. I've marveled at the pluck and wit of Taj Mohammad, a 27-year-old uneducated goat herder who has taught himself fluent English while in Cuba.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush can disobey 750 laws
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri on May 1, 2006 at 12:57 PM.

The fact that Bush wants to rule as something like a dictator is nothing new. Heck, he even said it himself. But a startling new article in Sunday's Boston Globe shows just how far he's already taken his wish: Bush has reserved the right to ignore as many as 750 laws passed by Congress during his presidency.

In the piece, Charlie Savage provides a rundown of how President Bush has used signing statements in lieu of the presidential veto. In contrast to Bush The First's 232 such challenges, and Clinton's 140, George W. has challenged 750 new laws in this manner.

The effects? Jack Balkin over at Balkinization neatly sums them up for us: The signing statements enable the president to pick certain portions of legislation that he doesn't fancy, undermining the will of Congress without any public accountability or effective recourse from Congress or the courts. George W.'s allergy to vetoes smack of a specific intent to avoid public scrutiny of his interpretation of the constitution. As Balkin writes,

The Bush Administration didn't want Congress regulating how it treated prisoners, regarding any such interventions as unconstitutional; at the same time, it didn't want the courts deciding the question of constitutionality either. It simply wanted to be free of legal obligations or responsibilities in this area other than those that it choose for itself.

While a presidential veto would require Congress to weigh in, and change the law if it appeared to be unconstitutional, those 750 signing statements are an effective way of influencing future legislation without facing any oversight.

The law is constantly subject to interpretation -- and signing statements have import in future readings of congressional intent. That means that these the president's willfull misinterpretation of Congress (case in point: President Bush's claim that the Authorization to Use Military force -- AUMF -- allows the president to illegally wiretap and search Americans) can impact future court rulings, long after Bush is out of office.

While it's tempting for those opposed to this president to continually ask, "How can he get away with that?" the answer is deceptively simple: because he thinks he can.

As journalist Robert Scheer noted in a recent interview with AlterNet,

These guys are…far worse than the Nixon crowd because they think they can get away with it. Nixon, at the end of the day thought it mattered what the New York Times said. He felt that if there was a big contradiction, a big error, they would catch him and there would be all hell to pay.

But it's not just the specter of the public and press that normally keeps executive power in check: Our political system relies on each branch exercising self-restraint. Fear of and respect for the other branches of government has long provided a more conservative exercise of power. But as Cheney has made explicitly clear, this administration is interested in expanding executive power, not restraining it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »