Carrying on the fight

For those who worked to save Troy Davis, we lost that struggle. Though I firmly believe he was innocent, I'm not writing about this case. I will start by honoring him.

Troy Davis proved himself a honorable and caring person, even when he was strapped to the gurney and knew his life would end in minutes. I don't know if I could forgive those who were about to unjustly kill me. He did, proving himself a hero. These are his last words as reported by the Associated Press.

"I'd like to address the MacPhail family. Let you know, despite the situation you are in, I'm not the one who personally killed your son, your father, your brother. I am innocent.

The incident that happened that night is not my fault. I did not have a gun. All I can ask ... is that you look deeper into this case so that you really can finally see the truth.

I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight.

For those about to take my life, God have mercy on your souls. And may God bless your souls."

I am not writing this as an English Lit exercise. I am writing in an attempt to create change. If you disagree with what I write I would love for you to comment stating exactly where we disagree. If you agree with my writing I would equally love for you to refer others to this page, especially those who disagree.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment does not deter crime, executes innocent people, is expensive, and is immoral. Where I use the words of others I will give credit.

Capital punishment does not deter crime. (From Amnesty International)

A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.

The murder rate in non-Death Penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty.

The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime

Capital punishment executes innocent people. (From Amnesty International)
Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.

Examples of wrongful convictions:

Arizona: Ray Krone, released in 2002

• Spent 10 years in prison in Arizona, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit. He was the 100th person to be released from death row since 1973. DNA testing proved his innocence.

Illinois: Madison Hobley, Aaron Patterson, Stanley Howard and LeRoy Orange, pardoned in 2003

• Sent to death row on the basis of "confessions" extracted through the use of torture by former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and other Area 2 police officers in Chicago. They were pardoned by outgoing Governor George Ryan, who also commuted the remaining 167 death sentences in Illinois to life imprisonment.

North Carolina: Jonathon Hoffman, exonerated in 2007

• Convicted and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of a jewelry store owner. During Hoffman's first trial, the state's key witness, Johnell Porter, made undisclosed deals with the prosecutors for testifying against his cousin. Porter has since recanted his testimony, stating that he lied in order to get back at his cousin for stealing money from him.

Factors leading to wrongful convictions include:

• Inadequate legal representation
• Police and prosecutorial misconduct
• Perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony
• Racial prejudice
• Jailhouse "snitch" testimony
• Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence
• Community/political pressure to solve a case

(My own words) Can anyone honestly say that, because some people were exonerated before being killed, that no innocent people were killed?

Capital punishment is expensive. (From Amnesty International.)

• A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)
• In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
  (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)
• In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
  (Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)
• In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
  (California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)

The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

Capital punishment is immoral.
I do not believe that "all my friends are doing it" is an excuse or a moral stance. But, when "all my friends" are making a moral decision, then I need to look at why they made that decision. With that in mind, here's a map of the world from Wikipedia showing where capital punishment is used and not used.


Legend

Abolished for all crimes

Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)

Abolished in practice

Legal form of punishment

Morality is individual. What I think is immoral, and what you think is immoral will likely be different. I will state some of the reasons I find capital punishment immoral. Each argument taken individually does not necessarily make capital punishment immoral. Similarly capital punishment is not moral just because you disagree with any argument.

Capital punishment is cruel to the accused, to the accused family, and to the victims family. The case of Troy Davis a good example. Troy's execution date was set four times. Four times Troy had to prepare to die, and four times both families had to prepare. This plays mental havoc on everyone. In the case of the victim's family, this delays when they can move on with their lives. Even in the case that their are no delay, capital punishment delays the healing process while the accused is on death row.

The race of the victim is more important in the decision to execute someone than the seriousness of the crime. This chart is from Amnesty International.

The assignment of the death penalty highly arbitrary. These are factors that contribute to the arbitrariness of the death penalty, including the previously mentioned factor of race. (From Amnesty International.)

• Almost all death row inmates could not afford their own attorney at trial. Court-appointed attorneys often lack the experience necessary for capital trials and are overworked and underpaid. In the most extreme cases, some have slept through parts of trials or have arrived under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
• Prosecutors seek the death penalty far more frequently when the victim of a homicide is white than when the victim is African-American or of another ethnic/racial origin.
• Co-defendants charged with committing the same crime often receive different punishments, where one defendant may receive a death sentence while another receives prison time.
• Approximately two percent of those convicted of crimes that make them eligible for the death penalty actually receive a death sentence.
• Each prosecutor decides whether or not to seek the death penalty. Local politics, the location of the crime, plea bargaining, and pure chance affect the process and make it a lottery of who lives and who dies.
• GEOGRAPHIC ARBITRARINESS: Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 80% of all executions have taken place in the South. The Northeast accounts for less than 2% of executions.

(From Amnesty International)
The execution of those with mental illness or "the insane" is clearly prohibited by international law. Virtually every country in the world prohibits the execution of people with mental illness.

International Resolutions	Year	Excerpt
UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty	1984	" ...nor shall the death sentence be carried out... on persons who have become insane."
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions	1997	Governments that continue to use the death penalty "with respect to minors and the mentally ill are particularly called upon to bring their domestic legislation into conformity with international legal standards."
UN Commission on Human Rights	2000	Urges all states that maintain the death penalty "not to impose it on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder; not to execute any such person."

The execution of the insane – someone who does not understand the reason for, or the reality of, his or her punishment - violates the U.S. Constitution (Ford v. Wainwright, 1986). The Ford decision left the determination of sanity up to each state. Constitutional protections for those with other forms of mental illness are minimal, however, and dozens of prisoners have been executed despite suffering from serious mental illness. The National Association of Mental Health has estimated that five to ten percent of those on death row have serious mental illness.

Examples

• James Colburn had an extensive history of paranoid schizophrenia when he was arrested for murder. During his 1995 trial, Mr. Colburn received injections of Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug that can have a powerful sedative effect. A 1997 post-conviction assessment questioned Mr. Colburn's competency to stand trial at that time, finding he had been "seriously sedated during the time of his trial." He was executed March 26, 2003.
• On January 6, 2004, the State of Arkansas executed Charles Singleton, who was said to be "seriously deranged without treatment" and "arguably incompetent with treatment." It was only during an episode of "drug-induced sanity" that the state scheduled his execution.
• On May 18, 2004, Kelsey Patterson was executed in Texas although he was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1981 and did not possess rational understanding at his trial.

The State of Texas ranks 46th out of the 50 U.S. states in terms of the amount of money spent per capita in the treatment of the mentally ill, including funds for mental health services in jails and prisons (News 8 Austin, April 21, 2003). It spends an average of $2.3 million to try a death penalty case. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

(My own words) Texas executes over four time as many people as the second highest state.

In the words of Troy Davis, "I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight." I ask my family, my friends, and others to continue to fight this fight.

The failure of Violence

Several times I have written about how non-violent action works. Today I am writing about the failure of violence. This is not a moral discussion, though my belief in non-violence is a moral decision. This is about the reality of violence.

I will not go into the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in detail. What is important is that many people believe that their protracted fight was one of the major causes of the collapse of the USSR. Most importantly, Osama bin Laden fought with the Mujahideen, and believed that they brought down the empire. Osama only believed in Sharia Law and violently opposed socialism, communism, democracy, and pan-Arabism. After the collapse of the Soviet Union he turned his attention to the other great power, the U.S., and apparently believed he could cause its collapse also.

Prior to 2001 he made several attacks on us with minor successes, enough to be on the CIA most wanted list. Then on 9/11/2001 he made had his only major success.

Our response was predictable and violent. We attacked. We overthrew the Afghan government, and sent Al Qaeda up into the mountains. Now we have killed Osama bin Laden. We won.

Since 9/11 we have had many of our rights taken away. All Osama bin Laden has had to do is occasionally have someone make an attempt at a violent act, and it didn't even need to be successful. Each time more of our rights were taken away. We now can be "legally" sexually assaulted if we choose to fly. We have spent trillions of dollars fighting while our infrastructure deteriorates, education falls behind, and we brought down the world economy. Osama bin Laden won.

So, both sides won violently.

I see something else. I see two playground bullies trying to be the playground boss, and so intent on hurting each other that they don't even see that the playground has moved. Both of us became irrelevant.

When Tunisia revolted against their government they did it on their own. The Western World and Al Qaeda were not invited. Egypt was one of our proxy torturers. When they revolted we didn't get the invite, and neither did Al Qaeda. When Pakistan and Afghanistan met to work out a reconciliation agreement the U.S. wasn't at the table. And the new Egyptian government just helped broker an agreement between Hamas and Fatah that would re-unite Gaza and the West Bank. The U.S. wasn't there. Al Qaeda wasn't there. We are irrelevant.

Stanford

Note: Libya is not an example contrary to my point. In Tunisia and Egypt the peaceful demonstrations were met with violent repression including being shot. The reaction of the people was to join in mass and peacefully. They won and it appears they threw off the imperial influence of the U.S. The Libyan people chose to rebel violently, and became dependent upon the imperialist in their struggle. Every case is different, and we don't know if peaceful demonstrations would have worked. I do know that because of their dependence upon external military force, if the rebellion is successful the external governments will have influence over their government and natural resources.

A proposal to amend the Constitution

Last week the Democrats and Republicans negotiated a budget. In that budget was a rider that prevented the 24th largest city in the U.S. from using locally collected taxes for a needle exchange, against the will of the city council provided a voucher program to fund students going to private schools, and restricted elective abortions. This was only possible because of a clause in the Constitution that give congress "exclusive legislation" over the District of Columbia.

This is an excerpt form Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
...
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
...

It is outrageous and immoral that the Republicans used the budget of the D.C. as a pawn in the negotiations, and it is immoral that the Democrats allowed it. There is only one way to permanently protect the citizens for this abuse in the future; to amend the Constitution. Washington D.C. needs to be granted statehood. There are other reasons to take this action.

1. The original purpose of this clause in no longer valid. It was created to permit the federal government the power to provide their own protection from attack. In 1783 a mob of angry soldier attacked the Congress at Philadelphia leading James Madison to argue for this separate district.
2. The people of Washington D.C. are to a great extent disenfranchised, going against the very principal of the establishment of our government. The 23rd amendment gives them 3 electoral votes, but still do not have anyone in the congress.
3. They want statehood.
These first reasons are moral reasons. There are political reasons also.
4. In recent elections the district has voted overwhelmingly democratic.
5. Washington D.C. is similar to many inner cities, and as such tend to support progressive social issues. This is exemplified by the very items that our government took away from them. The Progressive Caucus is the largest caucus in the House of Representatives with 18.4% of all representatives belonging. There is a good chance that a representative from D.C. would join.

Some of the the arguments against allowing D.C. representation are these.
It is contrary to the Constitution. This argument ironically was used by G. W. Bush who clearly violated the constitution. But, this is why I propose the change be made to the Constitution.
It is too small to be given the full representation of statehood. This ignores that Wyoming has a smaller population, and no one suggests it is too small.
The Democratic party is accused of supporting this for self interest reasons. My short answer is "So?" This is clearly a self interest argument and suggesting it, especially after what was done in the budget, is hypocritical.

For both moral and political reasons, the Progressive Caucus and the Democratic Party should make the statehood of Washington D.C. an issue.

Restore Democracy

The title of the post is the name of the blog. I originated this blog because our democracy was under attack from within. I am writing this post because our democracy is under attack from within.

In my last post I questioned our action in Libya based only on Libya. I thought hard before I wrote"Was what we did better than doing nothing? I can't answer this question. " I have decided that I should explain that statement. I am personally unable to make a judgment that violence against one set of people is better than violence against another set of people. I believe in nonviolent action, even when opposing violence. Gandhi, Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., the Egyptian uprising all did. I believe there was an action that was better than nothing, but I can't judge if our violent act was better.

I could go on, but this is about our country.

This is from our Constitution.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

...

Obama did not consult with congress when he attacked Libya, yet very few people in congress are taking him to task for exceeding his constitutionally granted rights.

"This president has assumed power that no president, not even President Bush, has assumed." Rep. Kucinich

"... assumed power ... not even President Bush ..." We now have had a Republican and Democratic administration that have blatantly exceeded their granted powers with little opposition. We are losing, or have already lost the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

How did we get here!

"... we don’t hang on to the past. We always move forward ..." Pres. Obama

To paraphrase, don't look at how we got here. Don't investigate war crimes committed by the previous administration. Don't recognize how we got entangle in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Don't do anything that could hinder his goal of raising over $750,000,000 for his presidential reelection. Don't alienate big business. Don't represent the people, but rather represent the corporate interests.

I am using only one example of how we have already lost our representative government. I could have used many examples of our governments at all levels going against the wishes of the people. I could have used the efforts, some successful to completely privatize local governments. I could have used the laws being passed that remove the right of unions to collect campaign money from members. I could have used the arbitrary arrest of reporters during the last presidential campaign, later to have charges dropped. I could have used the criminal system where blacks are arrested for loitering and then become the new slaves. I used the author of Audacity of Hope who has had the audacity to raise our hope and expectation with flowery words, then crush them while expecting the perfume of the words to hide his deceit.

When the village idiot tried to act like Emperor Bush he surrounded himself with clever crooks, and I knew that much of our democracy was pawned to the rich. Emperor Obama has now institutionalized lawless government and I question the very existence of government controlled by the Constitution.

I don't question the ability of the people to take back our constitutional government. But, it takes the will of the people, something I just don't see in great enough numbers. Therefore it takes each of us educating those around us, especially those that want to remain ignorant as to what is happening. Personally, for the most part I don't challenge their misconceptions. It will start a possibly fun debate, but it will not change their mind. I just provide them with facts they were unaware of. I show them that they have been getting poorer since "trickle down economics" started. I show them that the rich have been getting richer during the same time period. At another time I will tell them that only 10% of the money pledged to Haiti has been released for reconstruction.

Again I could go on. The point is a democracy works with an educated public, and if you want democracy you need to do your part to educate.

Stanford

To do nothing is unthinkable, to do something may by worse

The history of the Gaddafi regime supports the belief that his armed forces had been and were going to commit a massacre in order to preserve his reign. It was therefore unthinkable for the rest of the world to do nothing. But, as a pacifist and humanitarian I can't help but think about those dying by our hands.

We don't know anything about the man in this tank except that he was fighting on Gaddafi's side. Why was he fighting? Did he support Gaddafi? Was he a military contractor trying to earn some money? Was he forced to fight? (Remember, we use military contractors, and we force our military members to fight even when they disagree.)

Did this soldier have a wife? Was he a father? Is a mother, father, or sibling morning the loss?

Was what we did better than doing nothing? I can't answer this question.

On Tuesday's DemocracyNow! there was a debate between University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole and University of Trinity Professor Vijay Prashad. I encourage you to listen to it.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/29/a_debate_on_us_military_intervention

I have one last issue that was not brought up in the debate. Why is NATO providing command? Egypt, part of the Arab League has a strong military and competent command. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, also part of the Arab League are patrolling the skies over Libya. Does it take a Western power to take command? Is it a disrespect to expect Arab nations to follow commands from NATO, but not to consider NATO following their commands?

I have not discussed the monetary cost to the U.S., and do not believe it should be a consideration.

The Pop Quiz

OK class. We are going to have a current events quiz. Please take out a piece of paper and a pencil.

Are we ready? Good.

First question: Recently in Egypt reporters covering peaceful demonstrations were arrested and beating, then later released without charge. What country's administration condemned Egypt, yet in 2008 at peaceful demonstrations slammed reporters to the ground, arrested them, and later released them without charge?

Second question: Where is there an effort to outlaw public sector workers from organizing, and the government has threatened to call in the military to stop peaceful demonstrations?

Third question: This past weekend a reporter covering the rebuilding of schools in Haiti returned to his native country. Upon entry he was held for several hours as every paper he had was photocopied, a copy was made of his complete laptop hard drive, and the contents of camera flash cards were duplicated. What nationality was that reporter?

Fourth and final question: What part of the world have there been large mass protests to stop and prevent abuses like those in the previous questions?

Trade papers with the person next to you, and lets go over the answers.

Question 1. The U.S.. Secretary Clinton recently condemned Egypt for their treatment of the media, but at both the Democratic and Republican conventions in 2008 reporters were targeted by the police. At the Republican convention at least one reporter had his nose bloodied during his arrest. All charges were later dropped. Though the abuse was not as bad as Egypt, there was an organized effort to suppress the media.

Question 2. You get two point if you wrote Wisconsin, and one point if you said the U.S.. The governor of Wisconsin is trying to get a law passed that would eliminate most public sector workers' collective bargaining rights. Excluded from the law are law enforcement and fire fighters, the two labor groups that supported him in his last election. He has threatened to call out the national guard to stop protests against this action.

Question 3. American. When the plane landed everyone was told to have their passports available as they left the plane. When independent journalist Brandon Jourdan left two immigration workers grabbed him and took him to a room where he was held, questioned, and his information copied. He was the only person on the flight to have this treatment. His treatment is not unique. Reporters and lawyers working abroad often are treated this way.

Question 4: Inspired by the success of Tanzania and Egypt there are protest in many Middle Eastern countries.

Now, back to me, Stanford.

We do not have it as bad as people Tanzania, Egypt, Palestine, and many other nations with oppressive regimes. But, we are losing our rights, and losing them at a great rate.

Our government is suppressing the freedom of press by harassing reporters, arresting reporters covering demonstrations, and now attempting to cut funds for public and independent media.

Our government is copying the files of lawyers returning to this country, including ones getting evidence for the defense. This is denying defendants their full rights.

Our government claims the right to kidnap people including U.S. citizens (extrajudicial rendition) and even to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas without trial.

AT&T spits all communications going through the San Francisco switch, and possibly others, giving our government a copy of all communications without a search warrant. This includes all conversations, emails, text messages, etc. They claim to "only" keep communications with one party overseas. First, there is no oversight, and what gives them that right?

I could continue, but the point is made. If we allow this trend to continue, our government could become one of the oppressive regimes. It is therefore imperative that we follow the lead of Tanzania, Egypt, and others, and protest. Nonviolent protests work! Is has been proven! The costs are high, and people will die. That is also proven.

I do not suggest or support the overthrow of a government, except in the most extreme cases. I do suggest restoring our constitutional government, and adding security to insure that never again will our government become the bullies of the world. I do suggest prosecuting governmental leaders that have violated the law, giving them the right to a fair trail that they have denied to others.

50 Years Ago Today

This is the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's inauguration. On that day a superb orator gave his only inaugural address. Three days earlier the outgoing President Eisenhower gave his farewell address, and warned a nation of the danger inherent in our growing "military industrial complex". I recommend listening to these. Listen to these leaders at the dawn of the tumultuous 1960s. Listen for the similarities and the contrast.

President Eisenhower's Farewell Address
President Kennedy's Inaugural Address

As important historically as these two event were, I want to take you back to November 2, 1960. After the polls closed father took me down to the polling station as they started the vote count. The ballot boxes were opened, and more than one person looked at each ballot as the votes were counted. We did not stay for the whole count, but I saw enough to see democracy in action. I saw people insuring that each vote was counted, and counted fairly. Fairness was more important than result, and fairness was more important than speed.

By the time I voted the count was being done mechanically, and the results were provide to the nation quickly. Something is lost in the almost instant results. No longer can a 10 year old watch neighbors taking responsibility for the continuation of our form of government.

In addition the controversies and fraud of the 2000 and 2004 elections would not have happened with the slow methodical count. I do not claim that our elections were fair prior to electronic voting. Our history is filled with denying groups the vote be it race, economic standing, or gender. But, without mechanical counts there would have been no hanging chads in 2000. Without electronic voting there would have been no possibility for "man in the middle" fraud in 2004.

I believe that this country needs to get back to 100% paper ballots and 100% hand counting. I believe that the majority of accessibility issues could be addressed while still providing a hand counted ballot. I believe that these steps would strengthen our election process.

I hope you spend about a half hour listening to the two addresses linked above.