Obama on Civil Liberties
By Jerome Grossman
In January I was watching the Senate confirmation hearing of President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta. How did we ever keep informed before C-SPAN?
As a passionate civil libertarian, I was so proud of Panetta as he denounced torture without any reservations stating that the CIA would follow the rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Then he said that the U.S. would no longer engage in rendition, the secret shuttling of detainees and prisoners to foreign nations who torture.
I was so happy that I had voted for Obama and had sent him a fat check. And Panetta became my hero, boldly changing the positions of the Bush administration and the secret activities of the CIA.
A couple of days later, quite by accident, I caught Panetta on C-SPAN again, before the same Senate committee, a surprise because the first hearing seemed to have covered all the questions. A senator asked Panetta a leading question on torture: “What would you do if you knew that a bomb, maybe nuclear, was about to be exploded and your prisoner knew when and where?” Panetta replied that he would ask for “additional authority”, that is, to torture in exceptional circumstances.
Panetta's position has moral and operational flaws. How can he be sure that the intelligence about a bomb is accurate? How does he know that the prisoner has the information sought and even if he does that he will tell the truth? If the exception is built into the system, won't it be used more and more to justify torture, to break down a prisoner by claiming the most extreme danger whether or not it is present?
Then another senator asked Panetta to expand his views on rendition. He replied,” I'm glad you asked”, and proceeded to modify his initial statements: The CIA might continue its “extraordinary rendition”, transferring prisoners to third countries even those known to torturer, relying on their assurances of humane treatment. Just what the Bush administration claimed for eight years while the contracting countries routinely tortured. The senator may have asked: Why send prisoners or detainees abroad at great expense for mere interrogation? Wouldn't that jeopardize later judicial prosecutions? How can the interrogators’ actions be controlled from another faraway continent? Is it a good idea to farm out aspects of our legal system?
The Obama administration has decided “not to change the status quo immediately” on these issues according to Gregory Craig, the White House Counsel. Civil libertarians ought to take notice and express their disappointment about these matters as well as the continuation of electronic eavesdropping of phone calls without a warrant.
It was clear that the White House was having second thoughts about the very important changes in civil liberties described as Obama policy by Panetta in his first appearance. That is unfortunate and unwise. In the election, the American people repudiated the way the Bush administration operated. There needs to be a dramatic change of direction, especially on civil liberties, and without hesitation. That is the prime reason why Barack Obama was elected president.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Ted Kennedy: His First Election
Ted Kennedy: His First Election
By Jerome Grossman
An interesting sidebar to Ted Kennedy's inspiring political history harks back to his first run for the Senate in 1962. It was, as some labeled it, a "battle of the clans": Opposing Kennedy in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary was Edward McCormack, nephew of House Speaker John McCormack; Kennedy's Republican opponent was Yankee scion George Cabot Lodge; and on the left was Independent peace candidate Harvard Prof. H. Stuart Hughes, chair of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and grandson of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
I was Campaign Manager and Chester Hartman was the organizer of the massive signature drive required to place Hughes on the ballot. Hughes needed 72,000 signatures, a purposely prohibitive number in that era of McCarthyism and nobody in fact had tried to reach it since the law had first been passed.
In this talented field, Hughes polled 50,013 votes, 2.3% of the votes cast. However, we collected a startling 149,000 signatures in ten weeks for a "peace candidate." The Cuban Missile Crisis arrived in October just before the election. With the integrity that was his hallmark, Hughes went against the popular hysteria: he accused President Kennedy of acting over hastily in imposing the blockade of Cuba, of bypassing the United Nations, and unnecessarily stirring up an atmosphere of national emergency. His position cost Hughes thousands of votes.
In the process we built a town-by-town organization all over the state, a structure that remains in place today. A clear result has been the election over recent decades of so many progressive voices to the state's first-rate Congressional delegation, including Michael Harrington, Father Robert Drinan, Gerry Studds, Jim McGovern, Barney Frank, Ed Markey, John Tierney, Michael Capuano and John Kerry.
The Hughes campaign built the strongest statewide peace movement in the country, a movement that changed the face and reputation of Massachusetts politics.
By Jerome Grossman
An interesting sidebar to Ted Kennedy's inspiring political history harks back to his first run for the Senate in 1962. It was, as some labeled it, a "battle of the clans": Opposing Kennedy in the Massachusetts Democratic Primary was Edward McCormack, nephew of House Speaker John McCormack; Kennedy's Republican opponent was Yankee scion George Cabot Lodge; and on the left was Independent peace candidate Harvard Prof. H. Stuart Hughes, chair of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and grandson of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
I was Campaign Manager and Chester Hartman was the organizer of the massive signature drive required to place Hughes on the ballot. Hughes needed 72,000 signatures, a purposely prohibitive number in that era of McCarthyism and nobody in fact had tried to reach it since the law had first been passed.
In this talented field, Hughes polled 50,013 votes, 2.3% of the votes cast. However, we collected a startling 149,000 signatures in ten weeks for a "peace candidate." The Cuban Missile Crisis arrived in October just before the election. With the integrity that was his hallmark, Hughes went against the popular hysteria: he accused President Kennedy of acting over hastily in imposing the blockade of Cuba, of bypassing the United Nations, and unnecessarily stirring up an atmosphere of national emergency. His position cost Hughes thousands of votes.
In the process we built a town-by-town organization all over the state, a structure that remains in place today. A clear result has been the election over recent decades of so many progressive voices to the state's first-rate Congressional delegation, including Michael Harrington, Father Robert Drinan, Gerry Studds, Jim McGovern, Barney Frank, Ed Markey, John Tierney, Michael Capuano and John Kerry.
The Hughes campaign built the strongest statewide peace movement in the country, a movement that changed the face and reputation of Massachusetts politics.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Castro Wants U.S. Out of Guantánamo
Castro Wants U.S. Out of Guantánamo
By Jerome Grossman
President Barack Obama has earned justified praise all over the world for announcing that he will close the United States prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba within a year. This military colony has incarcerated hundreds of people seized in the U.S. - Afghan war of 2001-02 and the Iraq war that began in 2003. Because Guantánamo is outside the United States, the U.S. has argued that these so-called "unlawful combatants" are not subject to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners. They have not been tried and some have been tortured.
Cuban leader Fidel Castro praised Obama after his election as "honest" and "noble" but on January 29 he demanded that Obama return Guantánamo to Cuba "without conditions". Castro said, “Maintaining a military base in Cuba against the will of the people violates the most elemental principles of international law..... Not respecting Cuba's will is an arrogant act and an abuse of immense power against a little country.”
The United States does maintain an important naval station at Guantánamo Bay covering 28,000 acres. The site was leased to the U.S. in 1903 by a treaty that was renewed in 1934. Since 1960, the Castro government has refused to accept the token annual rent of $5,000 from the U.S. and has repeatedly pressured for the return of the base.
The U.S. helped the people of Cuba liberate themselves from the Spanish overlords in 1898. While they had the power to do so, the U.S. did not directly annex Cuba only because of its pretensions to being an anti-imperialist nation, an important political issue at that time. However, Cuba was forced to grant the U.S. special privileges to intervene in Cuban affairs at any time which we did in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920 by landing our Marines. The revolution led by Castro ended that arrangement.
The U.S. has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, arrangements entered into willingly by the nations concerned. When a country asks us to leave, that request is within their right under international law. To ignore such a demand would call into question U.S. motives and raise the spectre that the bases were forced upon “little countries” by military or economic pressures. The only superpower has a basic interest in maintaining international law and could enhance its position as world hegemon by giving up Guantánamo Bay as the host country requests.
Because no superpower, ancient or modern, has ever surrendered its military and economic preeminence voluntarily, it would be unrealistic to ask the U.S. to do so. But there are ways of leading, even dominating, that lessen the resentment of those led. One method is the use of "soft power" to promote education, health care, infrastructure, etc instead of spending money and manpower on military bases that flaunt superpower occupation and offend local nationalist sentiment.
By Jerome Grossman
President Barack Obama has earned justified praise all over the world for announcing that he will close the United States prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba within a year. This military colony has incarcerated hundreds of people seized in the U.S. - Afghan war of 2001-02 and the Iraq war that began in 2003. Because Guantánamo is outside the United States, the U.S. has argued that these so-called "unlawful combatants" are not subject to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners. They have not been tried and some have been tortured.
Cuban leader Fidel Castro praised Obama after his election as "honest" and "noble" but on January 29 he demanded that Obama return Guantánamo to Cuba "without conditions". Castro said, “Maintaining a military base in Cuba against the will of the people violates the most elemental principles of international law..... Not respecting Cuba's will is an arrogant act and an abuse of immense power against a little country.”
The United States does maintain an important naval station at Guantánamo Bay covering 28,000 acres. The site was leased to the U.S. in 1903 by a treaty that was renewed in 1934. Since 1960, the Castro government has refused to accept the token annual rent of $5,000 from the U.S. and has repeatedly pressured for the return of the base.
The U.S. helped the people of Cuba liberate themselves from the Spanish overlords in 1898. While they had the power to do so, the U.S. did not directly annex Cuba only because of its pretensions to being an anti-imperialist nation, an important political issue at that time. However, Cuba was forced to grant the U.S. special privileges to intervene in Cuban affairs at any time which we did in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920 by landing our Marines. The revolution led by Castro ended that arrangement.
The U.S. has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, arrangements entered into willingly by the nations concerned. When a country asks us to leave, that request is within their right under international law. To ignore such a demand would call into question U.S. motives and raise the spectre that the bases were forced upon “little countries” by military or economic pressures. The only superpower has a basic interest in maintaining international law and could enhance its position as world hegemon by giving up Guantánamo Bay as the host country requests.
Because no superpower, ancient or modern, has ever surrendered its military and economic preeminence voluntarily, it would be unrealistic to ask the U.S. to do so. But there are ways of leading, even dominating, that lessen the resentment of those led. One method is the use of "soft power" to promote education, health care, infrastructure, etc instead of spending money and manpower on military bases that flaunt superpower occupation and offend local nationalist sentiment.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Old Razzle Dazzle
The Old Razzle Dazzle
By Jerome Grossman
If President Barack Obama rescues America, and indeed the entire world, from the ravages of recession/depression, the gratitude of the populace will be boundless. His party will sweep the congressional elections of 2010; his reelection in 2012 will be by acclamation.
If Obama's stimulus plan fails and the economy sinks into depression, he will bear the blame, and he and his party will be swept from power. Obama says the stimulus “serves two functions-creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the short term and laying the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure that would be felt for decades.”
But some Democrats say that his package could end up missing both targets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the stimulus bill "could prove less than the quick jolt that President Obama is seeking," because of necessary delays in spending on longer projects.
To protect his political flank in 20i0 and 2012, Obama has catered to the policies of the Republicans, so that 40% of the entire package is composed of tax cuts. Vice President Joe Biden said "That's not what the Democrats wanted." But they accepted the Republican tax proposals to get their support and votes for the package. Then, in case of failure, Republicans could not attack politically in 2010 and 2012 because the bill included their own tax cut wish list.
However, after receiving the tax concessions, the GOP failed to deliver their votes. From being dispirited after losing the White House and the Congress, they now have a strategy: to blame Obama if the economy fails to rally, to blame Obama for the waste of trillions, to blame Obama for the anticipated inflation.
Today, Obama is in a very strong position. Virtually the entire country wants him to succeed. Guarding against possible failure, he wanted both parties on the same hook, the stimulus bill. In remarkable and unprecedented gestures of bipartisanship, he praised Ronald Reagan, met with GOP officials, dined with conservative pundits, solicited their advice and ideas, appointed Republicans to his Cabinet and policymaking positions, to name only a few outreaches. Obama made all those compromises for nothing.
So far, Obama has failed to achieve the desired cooperation or the bipartisan cover for his stimulus bill. The Republicans now have a political strategy for future elections. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on Obama’s future failure and the continuation of our economic troubles. Let us hope they are wrong in their use of the old razzle dazzle style of politics.
By Jerome Grossman
If President Barack Obama rescues America, and indeed the entire world, from the ravages of recession/depression, the gratitude of the populace will be boundless. His party will sweep the congressional elections of 2010; his reelection in 2012 will be by acclamation.
If Obama's stimulus plan fails and the economy sinks into depression, he will bear the blame, and he and his party will be swept from power. Obama says the stimulus “serves two functions-creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the short term and laying the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure that would be felt for decades.”
But some Democrats say that his package could end up missing both targets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the stimulus bill "could prove less than the quick jolt that President Obama is seeking," because of necessary delays in spending on longer projects.
To protect his political flank in 20i0 and 2012, Obama has catered to the policies of the Republicans, so that 40% of the entire package is composed of tax cuts. Vice President Joe Biden said "That's not what the Democrats wanted." But they accepted the Republican tax proposals to get their support and votes for the package. Then, in case of failure, Republicans could not attack politically in 2010 and 2012 because the bill included their own tax cut wish list.
However, after receiving the tax concessions, the GOP failed to deliver their votes. From being dispirited after losing the White House and the Congress, they now have a strategy: to blame Obama if the economy fails to rally, to blame Obama for the waste of trillions, to blame Obama for the anticipated inflation.
Today, Obama is in a very strong position. Virtually the entire country wants him to succeed. Guarding against possible failure, he wanted both parties on the same hook, the stimulus bill. In remarkable and unprecedented gestures of bipartisanship, he praised Ronald Reagan, met with GOP officials, dined with conservative pundits, solicited their advice and ideas, appointed Republicans to his Cabinet and policymaking positions, to name only a few outreaches. Obama made all those compromises for nothing.
So far, Obama has failed to achieve the desired cooperation or the bipartisan cover for his stimulus bill. The Republicans now have a political strategy for future elections. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on Obama’s future failure and the continuation of our economic troubles. Let us hope they are wrong in their use of the old razzle dazzle style of politics.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A Stimulus Project That Works
A Stimulus Project That Works
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama is pressing for a quick jolt to the economy to make up for the dramatic decline in public consumption that has left our business system gasping. The dream of endless consumption of goods and services has no limits as our species chews up the planet in the race between endless population growth and the finite resources of Mother Earth.
In the current economic crisis, we are all Keynesians, followers of John Maynard Keynes, who believed that a program of government spending on public works would increase national purchasing power and promote employment. The latest proposal considered by Congress calls for spending $825 billion, including $550 billion "For spending on infrastructure, science, energy and education programs over two years” and $275 billion "For tax cuts for individuals and businesses."
That bill will not give Obama his quick jolt. In total dollars it is inadequate: The stimulus needs to be $1 trillion for each of the next two years. From past experience in the US and Japan much if not most of the income generated will be put into bank accounts or used to pay debts. The proposed spending on infrastructure et al takes time to organize and is subject to delays, sometimes as long as two years. The tax credits to business are unlikely to stimulate investment and employment, which depend on an increased flow of sales.
Furthermore, the Congress program is too complicated, trying to correct social deficiencies when the problem is how to stimulate a quick jolt to restore purchasing power to give business the incentive to hire workers and invest in equipment. First things first.
Here is a simple plan to accomplish the objectives immediately and effectively without a new bureaucracy. For numerical simplicity, assume that there are one hundred million families in our nation of 300 million people. Mail to each family a numbered coupon giving ten thousand dollars for the purchase of goods and services only, a total of one trillion dollars. The coupon must be used within 60 days, and then sent to the U.S. Treasury by the vendors within 60 days. Repeat: only for goods and services, not for deposit in banks, not for payment of debts. Every family would participate in the plan, would understand it, and would benefit.The coupon would be worthless if not spent within 60 days, encouraging immediate spending.
This program gives the economy an immediate jolt of $1 trillion. The operating cost is minimal. No delay to set up a bureaucracy. The U.S. Treasury and Census Bureau have all the names and addresses. Repeat the $1 trillion project in 2011 to encourage business by promising the continuance of the purchasing power.
We are all Keynesians now, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Let’s use a Keynesian formula and objective in its purest form. Will it cost too much? Professor Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and chief economic advisor to President Reagan said, “Without that rise in government spending the economic downturn would be deeper and longer.” The production lost in a deeper and longer recession would amount to at least $5 trillion. The Keynesian formula will pay for itself.
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama is pressing for a quick jolt to the economy to make up for the dramatic decline in public consumption that has left our business system gasping. The dream of endless consumption of goods and services has no limits as our species chews up the planet in the race between endless population growth and the finite resources of Mother Earth.
In the current economic crisis, we are all Keynesians, followers of John Maynard Keynes, who believed that a program of government spending on public works would increase national purchasing power and promote employment. The latest proposal considered by Congress calls for spending $825 billion, including $550 billion "For spending on infrastructure, science, energy and education programs over two years” and $275 billion "For tax cuts for individuals and businesses."
That bill will not give Obama his quick jolt. In total dollars it is inadequate: The stimulus needs to be $1 trillion for each of the next two years. From past experience in the US and Japan much if not most of the income generated will be put into bank accounts or used to pay debts. The proposed spending on infrastructure et al takes time to organize and is subject to delays, sometimes as long as two years. The tax credits to business are unlikely to stimulate investment and employment, which depend on an increased flow of sales.
Furthermore, the Congress program is too complicated, trying to correct social deficiencies when the problem is how to stimulate a quick jolt to restore purchasing power to give business the incentive to hire workers and invest in equipment. First things first.
Here is a simple plan to accomplish the objectives immediately and effectively without a new bureaucracy. For numerical simplicity, assume that there are one hundred million families in our nation of 300 million people. Mail to each family a numbered coupon giving ten thousand dollars for the purchase of goods and services only, a total of one trillion dollars. The coupon must be used within 60 days, and then sent to the U.S. Treasury by the vendors within 60 days. Repeat: only for goods and services, not for deposit in banks, not for payment of debts. Every family would participate in the plan, would understand it, and would benefit.The coupon would be worthless if not spent within 60 days, encouraging immediate spending.
This program gives the economy an immediate jolt of $1 trillion. The operating cost is minimal. No delay to set up a bureaucracy. The U.S. Treasury and Census Bureau have all the names and addresses. Repeat the $1 trillion project in 2011 to encourage business by promising the continuance of the purchasing power.
We are all Keynesians now, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Let’s use a Keynesian formula and objective in its purest form. Will it cost too much? Professor Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and chief economic advisor to President Reagan said, “Without that rise in government spending the economic downturn would be deeper and longer.” The production lost in a deeper and longer recession would amount to at least $5 trillion. The Keynesian formula will pay for itself.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
By Jerome Grossman
On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.
While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”
Clinton's “last resort” became clear when she discussed relations with Iran saying “We are not taking any option off the table at all.” That is breathtaking and frightening. For more than a year, the US has been openly threatening to bomb Iran and one of the options is the use of nuclear weapons. “All options are on the table”, said President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most of the candidates in the 2008 presidential race.
Such threats are irresponsible and dangerous. Eight other countries have nuclear weapons and they all have real or perceived potential enemies. The weapons are on hair trigger alert as the controlling military scan potential enemies for indications of a possible nuclear strike. Threats, direct or indirect, as in “all weapons are on the table”, set up unstable situations that might lead to their use through error or faulty intelligence. Take them off the table.
All nations should publicly pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons-or threaten to use them. United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4, states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” When the US Congress ratified the Charter and the President signed it, the Charter became United States law. Any threat violates American law.
President Obama: tell your appointees to stop saying “All options are on the table.” The world knows this threatens the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction that would unleash a hell on earth that might destroy civilization. Please stop it now: Yes. you can
By Jerome Grossman
On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.
While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”
Clinton's “last resort” became clear when she discussed relations with Iran saying “We are not taking any option off the table at all.” That is breathtaking and frightening. For more than a year, the US has been openly threatening to bomb Iran and one of the options is the use of nuclear weapons. “All options are on the table”, said President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most of the candidates in the 2008 presidential race.
Such threats are irresponsible and dangerous. Eight other countries have nuclear weapons and they all have real or perceived potential enemies. The weapons are on hair trigger alert as the controlling military scan potential enemies for indications of a possible nuclear strike. Threats, direct or indirect, as in “all weapons are on the table”, set up unstable situations that might lead to their use through error or faulty intelligence. Take them off the table.
All nations should publicly pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons-or threaten to use them. United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4, states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” When the US Congress ratified the Charter and the President signed it, the Charter became United States law. Any threat violates American law.
President Obama: tell your appointees to stop saying “All options are on the table.” The world knows this threatens the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction that would unleash a hell on earth that might destroy civilization. Please stop it now: Yes. you can
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Rockets From Gaza
The Rockets From Gaza
By Jerome Grossman
There are valid fears in Israel, in the rest of the Middle East, and in Western Europe that Iran could develop nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons in the possession of any nation constitute an existential threat to all humanity. Nine nations possess nuclear weapons: The United States, United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan…..and Israel. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession, has never tested, but is believed to have between 100 and 200 nukes
However, there is a more immediate nuclear danger to Israel and the entire region: the possibility that the enemies of Israel could use non-nuclear rockets to bomb Israel's plutonium-production reactor at Dimona. The City of Dimona is situated in the Negev Desert and is the seat of Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. This danger is highlighted by the hundreds of rockets now being fired at targets in Israel from Gaza, some fired by Hamas, some fired by others in Gaza in homemade style.
Israel's fears are justified by recent history. As reported by the Arms Control Association, in 1980 Iranian aircraft attempted to destroy Iraq's Osirak reactor, in 1981 Israel finished the job; in the 1980s Iraqi aircraft attacked Iran's reactors; in 1991 the US bombed an Iraqi reactor; in 1991 Iraq launched SCUD-B rockets toward Dimona but missed.
In no case did these raids on nuclear facilities cause radiological consequences. The outcome of a successful strike on Israel's reactor at the Dimona could be catastrophic, releasing the radioactive contents of the plant causing radiological damage to all life in the area.
Should Israel close Dimona, a place of symbolic significance as well as one of the nation's most valued assets, in order to avoid the radiological consequences of a military strike on Israel's plutonium-production reactor? Or should Israel rely on its capability to retaliate against an attacker if that attacker is a nation-state? But what if the attacker is an individual or small group acting on their own?
Multiple factors may drive Israel's adversaries to hit the plant: it's centrality to Israel's nuclear weapons program, revenge for Israel's strikes on neighboring states, and most dangerously, an attack to intentionally release radioactivity as a weapon of terrorism.
Buried in the protective mantle of secrecy, Israel must have already made its decision. Let us hope it is the correct one. The problem is another illustration of the greatest dilemma of our time: How to bring nuclear weapons programs under control and then to eliminate them entirely.
By Jerome Grossman
There are valid fears in Israel, in the rest of the Middle East, and in Western Europe that Iran could develop nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons in the possession of any nation constitute an existential threat to all humanity. Nine nations possess nuclear weapons: The United States, United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan…..and Israel. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession, has never tested, but is believed to have between 100 and 200 nukes
However, there is a more immediate nuclear danger to Israel and the entire region: the possibility that the enemies of Israel could use non-nuclear rockets to bomb Israel's plutonium-production reactor at Dimona. The City of Dimona is situated in the Negev Desert and is the seat of Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. This danger is highlighted by the hundreds of rockets now being fired at targets in Israel from Gaza, some fired by Hamas, some fired by others in Gaza in homemade style.
Israel's fears are justified by recent history. As reported by the Arms Control Association, in 1980 Iranian aircraft attempted to destroy Iraq's Osirak reactor, in 1981 Israel finished the job; in the 1980s Iraqi aircraft attacked Iran's reactors; in 1991 the US bombed an Iraqi reactor; in 1991 Iraq launched SCUD-B rockets toward Dimona but missed.
In no case did these raids on nuclear facilities cause radiological consequences. The outcome of a successful strike on Israel's reactor at the Dimona could be catastrophic, releasing the radioactive contents of the plant causing radiological damage to all life in the area.
Should Israel close Dimona, a place of symbolic significance as well as one of the nation's most valued assets, in order to avoid the radiological consequences of a military strike on Israel's plutonium-production reactor? Or should Israel rely on its capability to retaliate against an attacker if that attacker is a nation-state? But what if the attacker is an individual or small group acting on their own?
Multiple factors may drive Israel's adversaries to hit the plant: it's centrality to Israel's nuclear weapons program, revenge for Israel's strikes on neighboring states, and most dangerously, an attack to intentionally release radioactivity as a weapon of terrorism.
Buried in the protective mantle of secrecy, Israel must have already made its decision. Let us hope it is the correct one. The problem is another illustration of the greatest dilemma of our time: How to bring nuclear weapons programs under control and then to eliminate them entirely.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Leon Panetta and the CIA
Leon Panetta and the CIA
By Jerome Grossman
President-elect Obama stunned the national intelligence community by selecting Leon Panetta to serve as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta has been a US Representative, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Chief of Staff in the Clinton administration.
While Panetta is a longtime Washington insider with serious management experience, he is not an expert on intelligence or on past operations of the CIA. Obama has been criticized by CIA specialists and high ranking senators for appointing a director without direct experience in the field.
But that is exactly why Panetta was appointed. Obama has criticized the agency for using harsh interrogation methods and has openly objected to the use of such methods, some of which have been used for generations under Democratic as well as Republican administrations. Obama had to find a director who was absolutely clean on waterboarding, other tortures, secret renditions of prisoners to other countries for torture, kidnappings, assassinations, etc.. The only safe appointment was a manager who had never been in the CIA, who did not have the experience of breaking US law and violating the Geneva Conventions on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Clinton administration made extensive use of rendering suspects to Egypt without formal charges to be tortured. Was Panetta involved? Will the question be asked at his confirmation hearing?
Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia immediately complained about the appointment citing lack of experience and Obama's failure to notify them in advance. However, their position is weakened by their failure to use their influence as powerful members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to expose the hideous practices and to arouse the nation of the crimes committed in the name of the United States.
It will not be easy for Panetta to reform the CIA and to change established patterns of conduct. Who becomes second in command of operations will supply a clue about the chance of success in changing the culture of the agency. The action levels are often hidden from the view of the Director at the helm. Obama is trying, and so will Panetta. The illegal procedures must be eliminated. They offend other nations, tarnish US reputation, and produce incorrect information. Modern intelligence techniques avoid torture and violence, rely on psychological approaches and obtain more accurate information faster without alienating the rest of humanity.
By Jerome Grossman
President-elect Obama stunned the national intelligence community by selecting Leon Panetta to serve as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta has been a US Representative, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Chief of Staff in the Clinton administration.
While Panetta is a longtime Washington insider with serious management experience, he is not an expert on intelligence or on past operations of the CIA. Obama has been criticized by CIA specialists and high ranking senators for appointing a director without direct experience in the field.
But that is exactly why Panetta was appointed. Obama has criticized the agency for using harsh interrogation methods and has openly objected to the use of such methods, some of which have been used for generations under Democratic as well as Republican administrations. Obama had to find a director who was absolutely clean on waterboarding, other tortures, secret renditions of prisoners to other countries for torture, kidnappings, assassinations, etc.. The only safe appointment was a manager who had never been in the CIA, who did not have the experience of breaking US law and violating the Geneva Conventions on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Clinton administration made extensive use of rendering suspects to Egypt without formal charges to be tortured. Was Panetta involved? Will the question be asked at his confirmation hearing?
Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia immediately complained about the appointment citing lack of experience and Obama's failure to notify them in advance. However, their position is weakened by their failure to use their influence as powerful members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to expose the hideous practices and to arouse the nation of the crimes committed in the name of the United States.
It will not be easy for Panetta to reform the CIA and to change established patterns of conduct. Who becomes second in command of operations will supply a clue about the chance of success in changing the culture of the agency. The action levels are often hidden from the view of the Director at the helm. Obama is trying, and so will Panetta. The illegal procedures must be eliminated. They offend other nations, tarnish US reputation, and produce incorrect information. Modern intelligence techniques avoid torture and violence, rely on psychological approaches and obtain more accurate information faster without alienating the rest of humanity.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Pastor Warren at the Inauguration
Pastor Warren at the Inauguration
By Jerome Grossman
On January 20, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States of America. Surprisingly, Obama has invited conservative evangelical Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the religious invocation to the two million people attending the ceremony in Washington, the 300 million Americans watching on television, and the billions around the world watching and listening as power changes hands in the world's unchallenged superpower.
Important political and social groups in the coalition that won the election for Obama are deeply disappointed at the choice of Warren. The pastor is a key figure in the opposition to gay rights, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose abortion. His rhetoric is exceptionally harsh, comparing gay marriage to “An older guy marrying a child" and to "One guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage", as well as comparing gays to pedophiles.
Gays and lesbians and supporters of abortion rights contributed mightily to Obama's campaign and gave him almost all their votes. Other enthusiastic supporters, civil libertarians and believers in the constitutional separation of church and state are stunned by the Warren invitation, that this man will address the world on behalf of Obama and the United States.
But they shouldn't be: they haven't been paying attention. During the campaign, in his march from liberal to the right, Obama vowed to expand President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative. In July, 2008, Obama proposed "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" that would include $500 million a year to faith-based service programs across the country. The plan would expand Bush’s programs that have been widely criticized for violating traditional separation of church and state by subsidizing religious institutions.
The Bush program also faced accusations of favoritism, especially toward evangelical groups. By appointing Warren, Obama is sending a message to those groups: the money will continue to flow, not only to the evangelicals but also to the African-American churches, not particularly rewarded in the Bush administration. As Obama subsidizes all religious institutions, the black churches will have the opportunity to catch up for past neglect. Honoring Warren is one way to begin the process. It won't be exactly a bailout, but it puts all the God-fearing on the gravy train. Let the strict constitutionalists worry.
On July 2, 2008, the Wall Street Journal printed an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term" arguing that Obama was embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy supporting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, backing off from immediate and complete US military withdrawal from Iraq, modifying his position on NAFTA, supporting the death penalty for rape, spending more money on faith-based charities, supporting the landmark controversial 1996 welfare reform etc. The Journal was obviously trying to diminish Obama but the honor to Warren gives their analysis some credibility.
However, calling Obama’s reign the equivalent of Bush's Third Term is too great a stretch, carrying the political analysis too far and insulting to the new president. There never was a president as inept as George W. Bush, who set records for incompetence and lack of understanding. Obama may fail to satisfy his basic constituency on some issues but he will know what he's doing at all times.
By Jerome Grossman
On January 20, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States of America. Surprisingly, Obama has invited conservative evangelical Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the religious invocation to the two million people attending the ceremony in Washington, the 300 million Americans watching on television, and the billions around the world watching and listening as power changes hands in the world's unchallenged superpower.
Important political and social groups in the coalition that won the election for Obama are deeply disappointed at the choice of Warren. The pastor is a key figure in the opposition to gay rights, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose abortion. His rhetoric is exceptionally harsh, comparing gay marriage to “An older guy marrying a child" and to "One guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage", as well as comparing gays to pedophiles.
Gays and lesbians and supporters of abortion rights contributed mightily to Obama's campaign and gave him almost all their votes. Other enthusiastic supporters, civil libertarians and believers in the constitutional separation of church and state are stunned by the Warren invitation, that this man will address the world on behalf of Obama and the United States.
But they shouldn't be: they haven't been paying attention. During the campaign, in his march from liberal to the right, Obama vowed to expand President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative. In July, 2008, Obama proposed "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" that would include $500 million a year to faith-based service programs across the country. The plan would expand Bush’s programs that have been widely criticized for violating traditional separation of church and state by subsidizing religious institutions.
The Bush program also faced accusations of favoritism, especially toward evangelical groups. By appointing Warren, Obama is sending a message to those groups: the money will continue to flow, not only to the evangelicals but also to the African-American churches, not particularly rewarded in the Bush administration. As Obama subsidizes all religious institutions, the black churches will have the opportunity to catch up for past neglect. Honoring Warren is one way to begin the process. It won't be exactly a bailout, but it puts all the God-fearing on the gravy train. Let the strict constitutionalists worry.
On July 2, 2008, the Wall Street Journal printed an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term" arguing that Obama was embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy supporting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, backing off from immediate and complete US military withdrawal from Iraq, modifying his position on NAFTA, supporting the death penalty for rape, spending more money on faith-based charities, supporting the landmark controversial 1996 welfare reform etc. The Journal was obviously trying to diminish Obama but the honor to Warren gives their analysis some credibility.
However, calling Obama’s reign the equivalent of Bush's Third Term is too great a stretch, carrying the political analysis too far and insulting to the new president. There never was a president as inept as George W. Bush, who set records for incompetence and lack of understanding. Obama may fail to satisfy his basic constituency on some issues but he will know what he's doing at all times.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
By Jerome Grossman
In August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, bringing death to 300,000 human beings, creating pain and endless suffering in the lives of countless others. Now nine countries have nuclear bombs; many more have the capacity to make them.
Today, there are, in combat readiness, enough bombs to kill the world population many times over….. And there is no defense. Nuclear war could happen any day - by accident, by design, by miscalculation, by terrorism, by madness. The weapons are still on hair-trigger alert, in this country and abroad.
The current review conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty proved that two groups of nations are in collision. The possessors of nuclear weapons want to stop the proliferators and proliferators demand that the nuclear powers reduce and eventually get rid of their own nuclear arsenals in accordance with their treaty commitments.
The United States needs to re-examine its policies that envision an active role for nuclear weapons in future wars and building a new generation of nuclear weapons. The American case against the nuclear weapons plans of Iran and North Korea would be greatly strengthened if the United States were to cut drastically its own stockpiles of nuclear weapons, abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons and approve the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
What happens in nuclear war?
1. Blast - creates enormous pressure, topples buildings and trees. Kills people by shock wave over pressure and wind, by flying debris, by throwing people against fixed objects and by crushing them in collapsing buildings.
2. Fireball - temperatures up to millions of degrees ignite raging fires and kill by flash-burn. People can be burned at great distances. Causes blindness
3. Prompt radiation - kills people close to the explosion by large dose. Smaller doses can cause acute delayed radiation sickness and possibly death. Affects future generations genetically.
4. Fallout radiation - spreads out to large distances, sometimes killing people hundreds of miles from explosion. Causes leukemia and other forms of cancer everywhere on Earth for decades. Increase incidences of stillbirth, tumors, congenital malformations and cataracts.
5. Environment - pollutes water, earth and air. Destroys forests and agriculture by heat and blast. Death by radiation of animals and birds, while radiation resistant bacteria, fungi, viruses and insects flourish.
6. Social disorganization – disruption of medical facilities and energy production, breakdown of government, authority and disaster relief, spreading of disease and epidemics. Fighting for scarce food supplies, despair at the enormous task of reconstruction - with the possibility of another nuclear war in the offing.
On the December 21, on the Fox Television News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace, Vice President Richard Cheney, made the following stunning statement:
"The president of United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."
By Jerome Grossman
In August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, bringing death to 300,000 human beings, creating pain and endless suffering in the lives of countless others. Now nine countries have nuclear bombs; many more have the capacity to make them.
Today, there are, in combat readiness, enough bombs to kill the world population many times over….. And there is no defense. Nuclear war could happen any day - by accident, by design, by miscalculation, by terrorism, by madness. The weapons are still on hair-trigger alert, in this country and abroad.
The current review conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty proved that two groups of nations are in collision. The possessors of nuclear weapons want to stop the proliferators and proliferators demand that the nuclear powers reduce and eventually get rid of their own nuclear arsenals in accordance with their treaty commitments.
The United States needs to re-examine its policies that envision an active role for nuclear weapons in future wars and building a new generation of nuclear weapons. The American case against the nuclear weapons plans of Iran and North Korea would be greatly strengthened if the United States were to cut drastically its own stockpiles of nuclear weapons, abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons and approve the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
What happens in nuclear war?
1. Blast - creates enormous pressure, topples buildings and trees. Kills people by shock wave over pressure and wind, by flying debris, by throwing people against fixed objects and by crushing them in collapsing buildings.
2. Fireball - temperatures up to millions of degrees ignite raging fires and kill by flash-burn. People can be burned at great distances. Causes blindness
3. Prompt radiation - kills people close to the explosion by large dose. Smaller doses can cause acute delayed radiation sickness and possibly death. Affects future generations genetically.
4. Fallout radiation - spreads out to large distances, sometimes killing people hundreds of miles from explosion. Causes leukemia and other forms of cancer everywhere on Earth for decades. Increase incidences of stillbirth, tumors, congenital malformations and cataracts.
5. Environment - pollutes water, earth and air. Destroys forests and agriculture by heat and blast. Death by radiation of animals and birds, while radiation resistant bacteria, fungi, viruses and insects flourish.
6. Social disorganization – disruption of medical facilities and energy production, breakdown of government, authority and disaster relief, spreading of disease and epidemics. Fighting for scarce food supplies, despair at the enormous task of reconstruction - with the possibility of another nuclear war in the offing.
On the December 21, on the Fox Television News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace, Vice President Richard Cheney, made the following stunning statement:
"The president of United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
