The Guantánamo Papers
The internal documents from the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, published in The Times on Monday were a chilling reminder of the legal and moral disaster that President George W. Bush created there. They describe the chaos, lawlessness and incompetence in his administration’s system for deciding detainees’ guilt or innocence and assessing whether they would be a threat if released.
Innocent men were picked up on the basis of scant or nonexistent evidence and subjected to lengthy detention and often to abuse and torture. Some people were released who later acted against the United States. Inmates who committed suicide were regarded only as a public relations problem. There are seriously dangerous prisoners at Guantánamo who cannot be released but may never get a real trial because the evidence is so tainted.
The torture has stopped. The inmates’ cases have been reviewed. But the detention camp in Cuba remains a festering sore on this country’s global reputation. Hampered by ideologues and cowards in Congress, President Obama has made scant progress in healing it.
Evidence obtained from torture and the uncorroborated whispers of fellow prisoners fill the more than 700 classified documents obtained by The Times and other news organizations. Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi believed to have been an intended participant in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was leashed like a dog, sexually humiliated and forced to urinate on himself. Yet claims Mr. Qahtani is said to have made about at least 16 prisoners are cited in their files with no mention of the coercion.
Some assessments relied on innuendo, gossip or information supplied by individuals whose motives were untrustworthy and whose information later proved false. Haji Jalil was captured in 2003 after an Afghan intelligence official said he had taken an “active part” in an ambush that killed American soldiers. He was sent home two years later, an inexcusable delay, after American officials determined that Mr. Jalil had been used to provide cover for the involvement of the intelligence official and others in the attack.
The Obama administration objected to release of the classified documents. The administration notes that the assessments were written between 2002 and early 2009 and that the task force established by Mr. Obama in January 2009 came to different conclusions about some of the remaining 172 prisoners. We accept that caution. But the administration is wrong to insist on secrecy. Inordinate resort to secrecy and resistance to testing evidence in fair and credible legal proceedings put the nation in this fix.
The administration should make its assessments of the remaining Guantánamo detainees public to the extent possible and free lawyers for detainees to fully communicate their clients’ side of the story.
The military commission trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and five other alleged Sept. 11 plotters should be pursued by the Defense Department using only evidence that would pass muster in federal court, and with maximum transparency.
The disaster at Guantánamo Bay is now Mr. Obama’s problem. He should not compound Mr. Bush’s mistakes in his efforts to correct them.
Boeing and the N.L.R.B.
It may be a difficult case to prove, but the complaint filed last month by the National Labor Relations Board against Boeing is a welcome effort to defend workers’ right to collective bargaining.
The N.L.R.B. is accusing the company of setting up a nonunion production line in South Carolina to retaliate against unionized workers in Washington State for striking. The board wants to force Boeing to make all of its new Dreamliner jets in Washington, rather than make 30 percent of them at the new line in Charleston.
The case hinges on proving Boeing’s intent. It is illegal to retaliate against workers for striking — there have been four strikes at the Washington facility since 1989 — or threaten workers in order to discourage strikes. But the company can decide to locate production in South Carolina because it makes business sense and may include “production stability” as a factor in its decision.
Boeing says it wants to diversify its assembly to make it less vulnerable to disruptions caused by potential future strikes. Further complicating the N.L.R.B.’s case, Boeing says opening the line in South Carolina will not lead to layoffs in Washington, where it is adding jobs, too.
The N.L.R.B.’s action lands squarely on an ambiguity in the nation’s labor protections — which enshrine the right to collective bargaining yet allow companies ways to avoid it by going to another state.
Today, 1 out of 13 private sector workers is in a union, down from about 1 in 4 in the early 1970s. Many forces are contributing to this erosion, including globalization and the decline of manufacturing. But one important force is the flight of companies to “right-to-work” states where workers cannot be required to join a union. Currently, unionized workers nationally make 19 percent more than nonunion workers, on average.
The N.L.R.B.’s case rests on statements by Boeing officials that, it believes, prove retaliation. One Boeing executive told The Seattle Times that the main reason to put the new line in South Carolina was “that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”
A hearing before an administrative law judge is scheduled for June. The judge’s decision can be appealed to the full board, and the board’s decision can be appealed in federal court. If the N.L.R.B.’s position is upheld, this case could draw some clearer lines on what businesses can and cannot do to avoid dealing with unions. At the very least, this case will shed light on the business strategies employed by a powerful company to resist unionization.
So Much for That Ounce of Prevention
House Republicans are so bent on blocking any and all aspects of health care reform that they have passed a bill that would eliminate a farsighted program — the Prevention and Public Health Fund — intended to help states and communities prevent diseases. Eliminating the fund would save roughly $16 billion over the course of a decade, a small amount in the context of a trillion-dollar health care reform. The loss to states and local communities would be considerable.
Although most of the health care reforms are devoted to improving care for the sick, the new fund is an important effort to stop people from getting ill — saving lives and money. It would support public health programs to prevent obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer, boost vaccination levels, and reduce smoking, among other things. The money could also help state and local health departments build laboratories, bolster their capacity to track epidemics, and train public health workers.
A wide range of health organizations, including the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, have signed letters in support of the project. But in floor debate, various Republicans insisted the fund gave too much power to the secretary of health and human services to decide how to distribute the money.
One Republican worried that the fund might be used to support elective abortions, a highly unlikely prospect. Another suggested that the secretary could use the money to buy political advertising on behalf of President Obama and health care reform. That is far-fetched.
The law clearly says the money must be spent for prevention, wellness and public health activities, and Congress can always pass legislation directing the secretary to finance favored programs or blocking spending on programs it opposes.
The point of giving the secretary this guaranteed money was to try to insulate implementation of a crucial element of health reform from the highly politicized annual appropriations process. This latest gambit from the House Republicans shows just why that is so important. The Senate should reject this bill.
Marriage Equality in New York
There are good reasons to believe that legislation legalizing same-sex-marriage in New York State is fated to fare better in Albany’s current legislative session than it did in 2009 when the State Senate voted, 38 to 24, to continue the state’s discriminatory policy of denying gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.
Opinion polls show a growing majority of New Yorkers favor marriage equality. And some senators who voted against the bill two years ago have since been replaced by supporters of the bill. To ensure passage, advocates now need to gain the votes of six more senators.
The most heartening new factor, though, is the active involvement of New York’s Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo. His predecessor, David Paterson, also supported same-sex marriage, but he was too weak and unfocused to get the job done.
With Mr. Cuomo’s encouragement, the state’s most influential gay-rights groups have banded together to form a united front. Working under the guidance of high-level Cuomo aides, their coalition is getting ready to mount an intense and well-financed campaign — including field organizers and a major media blitz — that would focus on about 15 Democratic and Republican lawmakers whose votes are thought to be in play. A seasoned labor and media strategist with close ties to Mr. Cuomo, Jennifer Cunningham, has been tapped to oversee the coalition’s political and media efforts.
These are signs that Mr. Cuomo intends to fulfill his previously stated vow to make a personal push to enact same-sex marriage this year. It will not be an easy or uncontroversial fight, which is all the more reason to applaud his active engagement and apparent willingness to exercise gubernatorial leadership in the cause of fairness for all New York families.
0 comments:
Post a Comment