No-brainers for the new government

Some issues are big and scary and complicated (like war and our financial system), and I can understand how I'm not really in a position to specify expectations for how the government will address them.

However, some other issues are so straightforward (even if they aren't 'big') that I can confidently say that if the new Democratic government does not address these issues, then they will be guilty of negligent government.

I'm sure that many issues fall into this category, but here's are two issues that I expect the new government to take care of in fairly short order:

Medicalize marijuana: Marijuana should be recategorized from Schedule I to Schedule II, so that it is no more restricted in its use than Coca or Opium. This would not allow Americans to buy raw marijuana, but it would make it easier for drug companies to investigate and commercialize marijuana extracts and their derivatives. (I intend to write a full-length argument for rescheduling in the near future)
Recognize civil unions at the Federal level: According to Glenn Greenwald , Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (1996) "prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couples", causing great hardship on same-sex couples. This needs to end, and Greenwald makes a good case for this being a political no-brainer, let alone a moral no-brainer.

Update: FWIW, my criteria for choosing these as "no-brainers" are basically the professed values of the Democrats (inclusion, compassion), public sentiment, and general reasonableness as "good government" issues.

Submitted by adam ricketson on Thu, 2008-11-06 19:16

-->

adam ricketson's blog
Login or register to post comments

Tags:

Comments :

See discussion at Freedom Democrats

This diary has gotten onto the "favorites" list, but no-one has commented! There's a bit of a discussion of this post over at Freedom Democrats.

http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/3142

In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.

by: adam ricketson - 2008-11-08 14:24 …………

Agreed

It will be interesting to see where the resistance for these measures will come from. Well, actually I'm pretty sure which special interest groups will fight against #2. Not entirely sure who would be against #1 though. Police unions, maybe, for whatever misguided reasons?

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

by: Spiritual Lefty - 2008-11-08 14:32 …………

drug war moral fanatics

There's a bit of moaralistic fanaticism surrounding drug prohibition -- and I suspect these fanatical drug warriors will oppose something as simple as treating MJ like Coca and Opium. Previous attempts to reschedule MJ have failed for just this reason. I think this could make it a good political move -- allow the Reps to block this bill in the name of consensus, and then publicly ream them for being beholden to a bunch of fanatics.

In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.

by: adam ricketson - 2008-11-09 11:08 ………… parent •

How about some stronger and more explicit laws against torture

Clear up any remaining confusion about waterboarding and equivalent techniques. Get rid of all the gray areas that can possibly be gotten rid of.

Also

Pass a comprehensive enemy combatant law, laying out how, where, and for what reasons an enemy combatant may be detained, what the processes will be to try such combatants, what rights such combatants retain, and the circumstances under which such a combatant should be released.

skymutt: accept no substitutes!

by: skymutt - 2008-11-10 03:36 …………

Gee, this sounds familiar ...

Where have I heard this type of talk before :

So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.

But of course congress never provided such a definitive statement, preferring instead to retain the existing vague and undefined language of Common Article Three.

Glad to see you are finally on board, skymutt. :)

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

by: GoRight - 2008-11-10 10:54 ………… parent •

Jeaz, you are at it again with the complete and utter falsehoods

Congress passed a bill which enumerated allowed and prohibited interrogation techniques earlier this year-- and Bush vetoed it.

Here's the relevant language in the bill :

SEC. 31627. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.

(a) Limitation- No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

And what does the Army Field Manual say?

As updated in September of 2006, the U.S. Army Field Manual (FM 2-22.3) provides a detailed and unclassified description of the interrogation process, along with a number of interrogation approaches that can be used to elicit information from detainees. The U.S. Army Field Manual leaves interrogators with significant flexibility to determine what approaches will work in particular situations or with particular detainees; it does not mandate that particular interrogation approach strategies be used in any given situation. The Committee has received testimony that the approaches in the U.S. Army Field Manual are effective at eliciting information from detainees and that they can be appropriately tailored to all detainees, including senior terrorist leaders. The procedures in the U.S. Army Field Manual have also been extensively reviewed to ensure compliance with both “American constitutional standards related to concepts of dignity, civilization, humanity, decency, and fundamental fairness,” as well as U.S. obligations under international law, including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. See U.S. Army Field Manual at 5-21.

In addition to describing interrogation approaches, the U.S. Army Field Manual includes a number of specific prohibitions. In particular, it prohibits “acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation.” It also explicitly prohibits forcing a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes of a detainee; applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain; waterboarding; using military working dogs; inducing hypothermia or heat injury; conducting mock executions; and depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care. Requiring the Intelligence Community to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual thus prohibits the Intelligence Community's use of these actions as interrogation techniques.

link

As part of his rationale for the veto, Bush rejected any such specification of allowed and prohibited interrogation techniques in laws governing the intelligence community:

Section 327 of the bill would harm our national security by requiring any element of the Intelligence Community to use only the interrogation methods authorized in the Army Field Manual on Interrogations. It is vitally important that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) be allowed to maintain a separate and classified interrogation program.

So, would you like to review your statement that "congress never provided such a definitive statement"?

skymutt: accept no substitutes!

by: skymutt - 2008-11-10 11:42 ………… parent •

We are admittedly in a grey area here ...

but since you chose to set the stage for this discussion with:

Jeaz, you are at it again with the complete and utter falsehoods

I now feel compelled to pull out my fine point sharpie and test that contention. Here are a few places where I ma demonstrably correct in my original statement:

(1) Technically, congress never did provide "a list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act", which by context is precisely what I meant by "such a definitive statement."

The text of the bill that you highlighted contains no such list. Does it? If so, please quote it here. Quoting from the Army Field Manual does not count, strictly speaking, because it is not authored by congress to the best of my knowledge.

(2) Bush's request only asked for a list of explicitly prohibited acts, not a list of approved techniques that would be used to limit the ability of the intelligence community to use techniques that are not widely known.

The need to a classified list of techniques that doesn't run afoul of the list of specifically prohibited acts should be obvious. Limiting the interrogation to a specific list of approved techniques will enable the terrorists to prepare their operatives to specifically resist those specific techniques, thus rendering them useless ofr interrogation purposes.

(3) The language in the Army Field Manual that you quote, while it contains some specifics, is still vague and undefined due to the inclusion of sweeping language such as: "In particular, it prohibits 'acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation.' ".

This language contains the same exact problems as the original Common Article Three did. So while it may list some specifics it is, in point of fact, no more specific or definitive on what is allowed or not. Why? Because terms such as "acts of violence or intimidation", "physical or mental torture", and "inhumane treatment" are every bit as vague and undefined in the Army Field Manual as they are in Common Article Three.

So, in summary, your "complete and utter falsehoods" claim falls a bit short of the mark because (1) congress itself never enumerated anything, (2) the enumeration provided by the Army Field Manual was unacceptably limiting to the purpose for which is was being applied, and (3) the language provided wasn't, in point of fact, any more definitive than the original language in Common Article Three because of its use of vague and undefined terms.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

by: GoRight - 2008-11-10 12:52 ………… parent •

So, because I got in a dig, you persist in arguing a lost cause

Serves me right I guess :-p

On item (1), you could have stopped at "technically"-- all that follows is semantics. It makes no difference whether Congress authored the list itself or found a preexisting list from somewhere else, and that it did not include the actual lists of techniques in the code is simply to allow the list to be added to or amended outside the legislative process, by modification of the field manual.

On item (2), Congress did what I asked of them, which was to "Clear up any remaining confusion about waterboarding and equivalent techniques. Get rid of all the gray areas that can possibly be gotten rid of." You said that that should have sounded familiar to me, as if that's what Bush wanted-- to get rid of all possible gray areas all along. Now you are saying that Bush did not want to get rid of the gray areas, so that the terrorists won't be able to prepare for a defined list of techniques.

The need for a classified list of interrogation techniques for the CIA is not obvious; it was considered and rejected by Congress on the advice of interrogation experts.

On item (3), it is simply not possible to enumerate all allowed or prohibited interrogation techniques, but by explicitly prohibiting waterboarding and a whole host of other techniques while also explicitly endorsing a list of 19 techniques, Congress was giving clear guidance to interrogators.

skymutt: accept no substitutes!

by: skymutt - 2008-11-10 16:05 ………… parent •

I give you one-half point for an almost valid dig ...

which I acknowledged by saying we are in a grey area. Learn to read between the lines, skymutt. :)

But your dig did have to valid holes as I pointed out, so I am not arguing a lost cause as you try to claim.

On item (1), you could have stopped at "technically"-- all that follows is semantics.

Well, I said I was getting out my fine point sharpie on that one! :) I grant you one-half of a good point for the over-all spirit and intent of your statement and the legislation you reference, but you lost the other one-half for technical accuracy since your statement was technically incorrect, and it was.

You say semantics like they aren't important. Given this current conversation and the ones of the past few days you might want to consider the second definition of semantics found here .

On item (2), Congress did what I asked of them ...

But they didn't do what Bush asked of them, which was my point. That fact that your request and Bush's request are similar but not identical isn't actually surprising, is it? What would be surprising to me is if they WERE identical.

On item (3), it is simply not possible to enumerate all allowed or prohibited interrogation techniques ...

So you agree that the current language continues to employ vague and undefined terms, right? If so, then enough said. If not, you are simply ignoring the reality of the subjectivity of the overriding terms being employed.

Under the current language someone is free to argue that looking at a detainee with crossed eyes is mental torture because they have some religious aversion to crossed eyes. (No, I am not claiming that this applies to any of the major religions of the world, it is merely an example ... albeit a correct and accuracte one.) Similar problems can arise with any of the other vague and undefined terms I highlighted.

... by explicitly prohibiting waterboarding and a whole host of other techniques while also explicitly endorsing a list of 19 techniques, Congress was giving clear guidance to interrogators.

Well, either the text of the Army Field Manual ONLY allows those techniques it lists as acceptable and ONLY disallows those techniques it explicitly prohibits, or it doesn't.

If it does restrict things as described then that directly contradicts your opening contention that "it is simply not possible to enumerate all allowed or prohibited interrogation techniques" because it did just that.

If on the other hand it does NOT restrict things as described then that directly contradicts your second contention "Congress was giving clear guidance to interrogators" because it is then vague and open to subjective interpretation.

Take your pick because one way or the other you are wrong. :)

The need for a classified list of interrogation techniques for the CIA is not obvious; it was considered and rejected by Congress on the advice of interrogation experts.

And on this it seems best to just agree to disagree to avoid an extended but ultimately fruitless debate.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

by: GoRight - 2008-11-10 18:33 ………… parent •

You say semantics like they

You say semantics like they aren't important.

I admit that my use of the word "semantics" does not mesh exactly with any of the dictionary definitions. I use it as it seems to be commonly used-- as meaning something akin to "a narrow parsing of language that deliberately focuses on trees at the expense of forests." . I will use it in a sentence for you: After he failed to find a substantive argument against any of the points made in the comment , stinerman* resorted to semantics.

But they didn't do what Bush asked of them, which was my point.

They actually did do what Bush asked of them-- they just did more than Bush asked of them, and the extra stuff that they did is in no way incompatible with what Bush requested in that statement that you highlighted. I guess Bush should have been more specific!

So you agree that the current language continues to employ vague and undefined terms, right? If so, then enough said.

...

[E]ither the text of the Army Field Manual ONLY allows those techniques it lists as acceptable and ONLY disallows those techniques it explicitly prohibits, or it doesn't.

If it does restrict things as described then that directly contradicts your opening contention that "it is simply not possible to enumerate all allowed or prohibited interrogation techniques" because it did just that.

If on the other hand it does NOT restrict things as described then that directly contradicts your second contention "Congress was giving clear guidance to interrogators" because it is then vague and open to subjective interpretation.

Well, I sought and failed to find an actual copy of the field manual. I'm really not sure precisely how techniques outside the 19 allowed techniques are handled. I still contend that no matter whether techniques outside the 19 are expressly prohibited or not, providing lengthy lists of what can and can't be done provides a great deal of guidance, any vague and undefined terms notwithstanding. If an interrorgator is unsure about a proposed technique, the choice is simple-- use one of the 19 approved techniques instead, or face the possibility of having a court decide your fate at some point in the future.

By the way, the terms are no more vague or undefined that the terms like "reckless disregard" or similar that were at the heart of the manslaugher laws that we discussed during the Bell case.

*I'm throwing stinerman under the bus because I'm pretty sure that he's not reading SC at the moment :-)

skymutt: accept no substitutes!

by: skymutt - 2008-11-11 05:17 ………… parent •

sound good

The only reason I might not consider them a "no-brainer" is that it is going to involve a lot of details (as you specified) -- there will be a lot of issues to work out, and a lot of room for squabling over the details, or asking whether the new law is tying the President's hands too tightly. Still, it'll be worth the effort.

This also may not be definitive, if subsequent Presidents argue that the law doesn't matter and infringes on his Constitutional authority. IIRC, that was Bush's argument.

Politically, they shouldn't be too dificult since we have a President who would presumably welcome such restrictions on Presidential power. Just to make sure that Republicans go along, we should start a rumor that Obama is going to declare all of the "patriot militias" to be "enemy combatants" and round them up without a trial. Even better, we can say that anyone selling guns at gun shows will be considered an enemy combatant...

Given how many dire warnings I've heard from wingnuts (published even in "respectable" publications such as the WSJ or Fox News *), they are probably already shitting themselves over this possibility.