Monthly Archives: April 2007

Time to Apply for ICANN Appointments is Running Out

The deadline for the 2007 ICANN Nominating Committee to receive Statements of Interest from candidates for the ICANN Board of Directors, GNSO Council, ccNSO Council and At-Large Advisory Committee is 1 May 2007 23:59 UTC. Potential candidates have twoone weeks to submit completed Statements of Interest to nomcom2007@icann.org.

The 2007 Nominating Committee will select:

  • 3 seats on the ICANN Board of Directors
  • 2 members to Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO)
  • 3 members of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) (from Africa, Latin America and Caribbean and Asia/Australia/Pacific regions)
  • 1 Country Code Names Support Organization Council (ccNSO) member

Information about the 2007 Nominating Committee is available at http://nomcom.icann.org. Information on the formal call for Statements of Interest is available at http://nomcom.icann.org/formal-call-2007.html.

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on Time to Apply for ICANN Appointments is Running Out

Where’s the Beef?

On the eve of the Padilla trial, the Washington Post has a good review of the government's case: rich on “atmospherics,” but Few Specifics Evident As Padilla Trial Nears.

In short, nothing substantive has changed much since I wrote about the strange lightness of the indictment back in November 2005 (!).

[Index of my Padilla-related posts.]

Posted in Padilla | Comments Off on Where’s the Beef?

Bad For Butlers

Robert Waldmann — who's been on a roll lately — writes about Democratic proposals to shift the AMT burden to the richest 1% of taxpayers. A winning argument both politically and economically. And one opposed by the plutocrat party, who call it “class warfare.” Waldmann quotes Wisconsin Rep. Paul D. Ryan, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, as saying that raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans is a “job killer.”

To which Waldmann replies,

I wonder if Ryan has an actual argument behind his claim that shifting taxes to the rich kills jobs.

I don't know what Ryan would say, but I imagine that at some point raising AMT for the very rich reduces the demand for butlers. So, yes, it is a “job killer” — of a very special sort.

(Yes, yes, I am aware that when taxes become confiscatory there are undesirable economic effects — but we're nowhere near there and no one is proposing we go there.)

Posted in Econ & Money | Comments Off on Bad For Butlers

Public Transport as a Cute Public Good

Via The Early Days of a Better Nation, a pointer to this wonderful party political broadcast by the Scottish Socialist Party.

As Ken MacLeod points out, this video is so cute that “You can disagree completely with the policy and still find yourself smiling.”

I'd add that although I can't speak to the cost estimates (or the relative value of the things to which the cost is compared) the basic economics underlying the proposal are straight out of what I recall from my college public welfare economics course: mass transit is a public good because every user of the bus or train reduces the number of cars on the road, thus increasing the value of the (less clogged) roads for everyone else. Thus, the socially optimum price of mass transit is actually less than the profit-maximizing price (because the price fails to give credit for the positive externalities), and likely to be a price that runs the system at a loss. In a world free of transactions costs, pricing mass transit at zero is probably below the socially optimum price, but there comes a point at which collecting the money costs more than it is worth, so free transit may be economically rational. Politically, of course, it is also a visible symbol of what your tax monies are buying.

Posted in Politics: International | 3 Comments

NYT Runs Correction on Gonzales Impeachment

I guess I should be grateful for minor victories. Today's NYT has this correction:

A news analysis article yesterday about the testimony of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee referred incorrectly to the power of Congress to remove an attorney general from office. Under the Constitution, civil officers of the United States government may be removed upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate. Congress is not powerless to remove the attorney general.

Posted in The Media | 3 Comments

Rumsfeld’s House of Lies and Inhumanity

British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith has 36 clients in Guantánamo. He's written a book called “Bad Men” about what a twisted place it is, and the Guardian is running excerpts,

In Guantánamo, the military began with smaller lies and worked upwards. I was visiting Camp Echo one day and they had messed up the visitation schedule. The client I was meant to see was not there, although I had sent the schedule for my visits several weeks before. I thought I might as well go ahead and see Shaker Aamer [British resident captured in Afghanistan], whom I was not meant to meet until later in the week. So I asked the SOG (the sergeant of the guard, in charge of the camp) whether Shaker was in his normal cell. “No, he's not here,” the SOG replied. I settled down for another wasted hour, waiting for the military to bring over someone I could see. It was hot even under the umbrella at the “picnic table” – the area behind one of the cells in Camp Echo where they made lawyers wait. I watched a lizard crawling up the green mesh on the wire fence. I thought about the spider in Robert the Bruce's cave, continually battling to spin its web and teaching patience to the early Scottish nationalists.

The next day I saw Shaker. “Were you here yesterday?” I asked. “Yeah, of course. I've been here for weeks,” he replied. …

The dissembling disease got worse as time passed. First there was the effort to suppress the truth, with censorship or silence rather than any overt falsehood. Then there was the lie by semantics, where the US military redefined the language to provide plausible deniability. Finally, there was the bare-faced lie. This kind of culture does not germinate in a vacuum. Rumsfeld is responsible for a reconstitution of the English language. …

In a December 2004 press conference, the US navy secretary Gordon England tried to defend conditions in Guantánamo by producing the novel argument that the camp was rehabilitative: “People have learned to read and have learned to write, and so it's not just being incarcerated. We do try to get people prepared for a better life.” Prisoners had some difficulty exercising their new-found abilities. Indeed, contrary to England's statement, prisoners in Guantánamo were certainly not considered “people” and the guards were not even allowed to call them “prisoners”. …

Meanwhile the authorities exercised rigid control over any information that the prisoners received. Each time I went to visit, I would take a suitcase full of reading materials. I maintained a log reflecting the fate of each publication. Magazines awarded the stamp DENIED included National Geographic, Scientific American and Runner's World. On one occasion it seemed justified, since that month's National Geographic had a story about building an atomic bomb, but the editions about whales and African tribes hardly seemed a threat to national security. One soldier explained the censorship of Scientific American to me: the prisoner might learn about some hi-tech weapons system. Banning Runner's World was less obvious, given the naval base was surrounded on one side by a Cuban minefield and on the other three by ocean.

…I dropped off an anthology of first world war poetry for Omar Deghayes that included Wilfred Owen's poem Futility, about the ghastly violence of war. It was returned DENIED.

Omar was born in 1969 and was a British refugee from Libya. His father was tortured and killed by Muammar Gadafy in 1980, and as a teenager Omar moved with his family to Brighton and studied law. He had not completed his law exams, so I brought his books so he could study, ready for his release. Law books, though, were not permitted, least of all a subversive tome about the legal rights of prisoners.

The only Australian left in Guantánamo, David Hicks, was facing a military con-mission, like Binyam, and his lawyer was banned from giving him Scott Turow's legal thriller Presumed Innocent. The basis for censoring The New Dinkum Aussie Dictionary was less clear. Perhaps the strangest decision involved four books returned with the notation: “These Items were not Cleared for Delivery to the Detainee(s).” They were Puss in Boots, Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Beauty and the Beast – all in Arabic translation. As one FBI agent admonished me: “You know that Arabic script is full of squiggles, and it can easily hide messages to the prisoners.” Could it be, I wondered, that Cinderella was secretly an enemy combatant? Eventually the military barred us from bringing books for our clients altogether.

And then there was the secrecy: lawyers were neither allowed to repeat anything the prisoners said to them, nor even to keep their own notes, which were all shipped to DC to be scrutinized by a declassification group before they'd be let out into the open.

All this was to control the flow of bad news out of Guantánamo. From the beginning Joe Margulies, the other civilian lawyer working for Binyam Mohamed, encapsulated the proper response to this: if we could open up the prison to public inspection, the government would close it down.

And there was a lot to hide. For example,

The way the military had pretended to torture his wife in the next room, even information about American soldiers murdering two prisoners in front of Moazzam, was considered a “method of interrogation” that could not be revealed.

Amnesty International's report, USA: Cruel and Inhuman — Conditions of Isolation for Detainees in Guantanamo Bay is grim. I wish every member of Congress could be persuaded to read it.

Despite being provided with what the US government has called “high quality” medical care, adequate food, sanitation and access to religious items, most detainees have languished in harsh conditions throughout their detention, confined to mesh cages or enclosed maximum security cells. Moreover, in December 2006, a new facility opened on the base. This facility, known as Camp 6, has created even harsher and apparently more permanent conditions of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation in which detainees are confined to almost completely sealed, individual cells, with minimal contact with any other human being.

At the time of writing, about 300 of the Guantánamo detainees — nearly 80 per cent of the current detainee population — were believed to be held in isolation in Camps 5, 6 or Camp Echo. According to the Pentagon, 165 detainees had been transferred to Camp 6 from other facilities on the base by mid-January 2007. Around 100 detainees are held in Camp 5, and some 20 more are believed to be held in isolation in Camp Echo, a facility set apart from others on the base, which was originally used to hold detainees selected for trial by military commissions. Fourteen “high value” detainees transferred from years of secret detention to Guantánamo Bay in September 2006 are also held in isolation on the base, although their exact location is unknown.

The isolation, and other psychologically damaging aspects of the treatment are literally driving the prisoners crazy. It is no surprise that there are suicides and growing hunger strikes.

I do not believe that this sort of treatment can be justified under any moral standard, however elastic.

Posted in Guantanamo | 2 Comments