Matthew Chapman: Gun Control, Rio De Janeiro, Colorado, and the USA

I copy below an article written by Matthew Chapman after the most recent American massacre. I agree with everything he says.

"As someone who grew up in a place where guns designed to kill people are more or less banned and where no one feels that some essential freedom has been lost (on the contrary, freedom from fear is cherished) I often wonder what it will take for Americans to absolutely reject the groups like the NRA, all their ideas, and anyone who supports their morbid, necrophiliac love of an element of the constitution that is anachronistic, poorly written, unclear, and insanely stupid given modern weaponry. After which, we could actually start to do something to save the approximately 30,000 lives lost to gunshot wounds every year, many of them children.

When I adapted John Grisham's book Runaway Jury, changing it from a lawsuit about tobacco to one about guns, I met gun manufacturers who, supported by the NRA, proudly refused to add even the most basic safety features to guns and resisted any kind of legislation aimed at preventing negligent marketing of guns to individuals who were clearly selling them on to criminals. It was the most cynical thing I ever witnessed, this faux reverence for the constitution. My belief is that sooner or later a gunman or gunmen with legally acquired weapons will kill not 12 or 20 people but several hundred children (who no one advocates arming for self-defense) trapped in some unique location. And then, maybe, Americans will say, "Wow, I wonder if we should do something about this arcane piece of constitutional junk and start bringing America into the modern world."

I dislike reverence in almost all forms, it's usually a kind of constriction on the intellect, but reverence for old documents is doubly stupid when, as in this case, and rather unusually, the writers of the document had the good sense to write in a provision for changing the thing when needed and indeed encouraged the idea of doing so! I'm sure, as with so many things, this would have happened decades ago if America wasn't so arrogantly averse to looking at other countries where various things function better than in "the greatest country in the world." And demonstrably so. Just look at the figures for murder by gun in any other country in the world outside of war zones. Or look at what has happened in the other city I sometimes live in, Rio de Janeiro.

People say they want to keep their guns in case criminals with guns come for them, and others say it's an impossible situation to solve, guns being so entrenched in North American culture. Well, all of that applies ten times over in the favelas of Rio which are, or were, much more infested with guns than any slum in America. Up in some favelas the gangs had guns that could bring down helicopters.

Here is a photo of me and the man who is solving the gun problem in these favelas, and in the culture of the favelas, Rio State Public Security Secretary Jose Mariano Beltrame.

Beltrame came up with the following strategy. He warned the favelas they were going to be invaded on a certain day and anyone caught with guns would be imprisoned. He then told the favela dwellers of an ongoing anonymous-reporting phone line so they could warn the police of large and small caches of arms.

And he assured them that once their favela had been taken over, community policing would take over. And -- and here's the key thing that's left out of all gun arguments in America -- SOCIAL SERVICES would be provided to help people get off drugs, train for jobs, find jobs, improve their homes, improve their schools, etc. Given a choice between a functioning gun-free society or one ruled by fear and greed, the community turned against those who owned guns, turned them over to the police, and -- perhaps most inspiringly of all -- accepted the social services but as a community went way beyond the government offered gift, taking control and care of their own neighborhood.

Anyone who doubts the possibility of radical and beautiful social change should see a crop of new Brazilian films that have come out of the favelas, or visit Rio which has become a different and so much more pleasant city -- and not just in the favelas. Just as with drugs, mere punitive action is demonstrably useless and often counterproductive. Look at the prison population in America while gun and drug problems continues unabated. Charity doesn't help much either.

There's a thing called government -- we vote for it, it's us if it's not corrupted by money -- and it can do anything if we don't constantly pour scorn on it as if it was something detached from us rather than our best and most just expression of ourselves."

Coffee and the Human Condition

I hate the taste of coffee. God knows I have tried to stand  in line at Starbucks and ask in a smug all –knowing voice “Give me a Latte” , and then retreat to a little table and pretend I am enjoying it. But they know it is fake when I refuse to use the cute little terms like “Tall, Grande and Vente” (I am still not sure what these mean) and just say “small”. I also  refuse the whipped cream on top and, to add insult to injury, I ask for only half a cup, which drives the barista crazy. Of course I say that I will pay for a full cup, but that does not assuage their opinion of me. In fact I can  only tolerate to sip the coffee by adding two or three packages of sugar.

And as for Starbucks, Peets and their ilk, these stores are the quintessential American plastic copies of the original coffee houses in Greenwich Village in the 60’s. They exude artificial friendliness in a “Steppford Wife” sort of way. And the fact that all look identical, no matter where you are in the US, belays the attempt  to convey a friendly neighborhood atmosphere.

I do however like the concept of coffee, the gemutlichkeit and camaradie that goes with sipping a cup with friends. But even this is sullied when I see the furtive smokers in the leper space outside the building at work with the cigarette in one hand and the omnipresent cup of coffee in the other (Why do smoking and coffee drinking go hand in hand?)

When I travel to my adopted country, Brazil, I do enjoy the institution known as the afternoon cafezinho (little coffee), where one goes to the neighborhood stand up Butequim (counter corner restaurant) and gets a tiny cup filled half with powdery sugar to which is added hot strong black coffee. One is then expected to drink the entire cup with one quick movement of the head. The only saving grace is that it tastes like sweet hot syrup. Again, I like the concept but I don’t like the actuality. But alas, the Starbucks disease has also infected Brazil; they even advertise that they are recreating the “Starbucks Experience” in Brazil.

Ah well, nothing is perfect.

June 2012 - The Most Destructive Fires in Colorado History

These fires were predicted to occur in the Southwest by almost all climatologists as a result of climate warming. The warming caused the severe droughts, which allowed the bark beetles to increase their range, which killed trees and created more fuel for wildfires. And yet no one in the popular media nor any politician - even President Obama - made this obvious logical connection.

And Andrew Freeman in the Climate Central blog pointed out that a major heat wave is hanging over the Southwest and is moving east. He said that "Denver endured a record fifth straight day of 100-degree temperatures on Tuesday, and the high temperature of 105°F tied the city’s all-time record high, a milestone that reached just a day earlier. Colorado Springs also hit an all-time mark on Tuesday, with a high of 101°F."

This is the most serious issue that the human race has ever faced and not a single politician in our country nor in any other country is planning to do anything about it. As Bill McKibben wrote recently, "Today is one of those days when you understand what the early parts of the global warming era are going to look like."

 God help us, the people in power will not! Their children and grandchildren will say "What were they thinking. Why did they ever let this happen?"

Go figure

The science of robotics is far above my scientific pay scale but not above my interest and amazement. I love to read (and write) Science Fiction and robots will almost certainly play a key role in the near future of our species. I just saw two videos about robot research which were both scary and exciting.

In one, a robot designed by Boston Dynamics for ARPA to be able to respond to disasters, appears to walk, climb steps and recover itself from falling in a truly humanoid and robust fashion. Truly incredible!
The link is  http://tinyurl.com/7aoxjty

In another video at the same link, a creepy robot named Jules has a Hal-like conversation with his human makers at Hanson Robotics. They could have at least left the back half of his head intact!

Go figure.

Civilization Is At Risk Absent ‘Urgent And Large-Scale Action’

In preparation for a UN sponsored conference in Rio this coming June, there was a recent "Planet Under Pressure" conference for which the conference leaders published a "State of the Planet" Declaration. I copy below an article about this by Joe Romm, who maintains one of the most important blogs on climate change  at http://tinyurl.com/77zz4tn

I underscore his final sentence: "When will policymakers and the media start listening? "

Climate change could fuel a giant ‘compost bomb’ … as decaying vegetation stuck under under the ice or in peat bogs starts to heat up and tips the world into dangerous global warming.

“Scientists fear that if temperatures warm up too fast peatland soils will heat up like a compost heap and release billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.” Photo: GETTY IMAGES

The Planet Under Pressure conference began with an urgent warning of fast-approaching tipping points like the “compost bomb.” It ended with a plea by the conference leaders for urgent and large-scale action.

The conference website reports, “Scientists issue first ‘State of the Planet’ declaration at the world’s largest gathering of experts on global environmental and social issues in advance of the major UN Summit Rio+20 in June.”

The language is unusually blunt for scientists — or it would have been considered unusually blunt before humanity chose to ignore decades of warning by scientists (see Lonnie Thompson on why climatologists are speaking out: “Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization” ).

The statement begins:

Research now demonstrates that the continued functioning of the Earth system as it has supported the well-being of human civilization in recent centuries is at risk. Without urgent action, we could face threats to water, food, biodiversity and other critical resources: these threats risk intensifying economic, ecological and social crises, creating the potential for a humanitarian emergency on a global scale….

The defining challenge of our age is to safeguard Earth’s natural processes to ensure the well-being of civilization while eradicating poverty, reducing conflict over resources, and supporting human and ecosystem health….

As consumption accelerates everywhere and world population rises, it is no longer sufficient to work towards a distant ideal of sustainable development. Global sustainability must become a foundation of society. It can and must be part of the bedrock of nation states and the fabric of societies.

While some bloggers have tried to suggest that this statement endorses a do-little, R&D-centric approach, in fact the reverse is true. The statement makes clear, “Society is taking substantial risks by delaying urgent and large-scale action.”

Further, the Conference’s Board of Patrons — 18 leading figures including scientists, CEOs, and major politicians — took the unusual step of endorsing the entire statement and adding their own blunt assessment:

The Board of Patrons welcomes and endorses the Conference statement.

The human species is degrading the environment at all spatial scales, from local to global. Scientific understanding of environmental deterioration has improved and deepened since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, but society has failed to address environmental degradation at a scale the problems require. We have to manage the planet as the biophysical system that it is and for all the promise that it holds. The survival of our societies, our civilization and our cultures are dependent on a stable climate, natural resources and ecosystem services. We have become a force of nature, but individually we continue to be vulnerable. Business-as-usual is not an option. The time for action is now.

Our civilization is at stake.

The UK Telegraph reported on one of the openings talks that underscored that point, “ ‘Compost bomb’ is latest climate change ‘tipping point’ “:

Scientists fear that if temperatures warm up too fast it will destabilise these natural cycles and unlock billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Peatlands cover just 3 percent of the world’s land area, but the soil could store up to twice the amount of carbons currently in the atmosphere.

Peter Cox, Professor of Climate System Dynamics at the University of Exeter, explained the process of decomposition kicked off by warmer temperatures.

He said microbes in the soil generate more heat as they break down vegetable matter, releasing a certain amount of gases until the “compost heap” is exhausted or temperatures cool

However if temperatures rise too fast there is a “runaway effect” as the microbes are producing heat so fast it cannot be released and builds up, potentially causing fires. Gases also build up eventually causing a huge ‘burp’ or explosive release of carbon into the atmosphere all at once….

“But if we are warming the planet too fast then theoretically the soils will warm up like a compost heap, making the microbes work faster and generate yet more heat. This causes heat and gases to build up and an abrupt release of carbon into the atmosphere.”

The compost bomb also causes a positive ‘feedback loop’ as the hotter the soil gets the harder the microbes work, causing yet more heat. Also the gases released cause more global warming.

Speaking at the Planet under Pressure conference in London, Prof Will Steffen, a global change expert from the Australian National University, described the ‘compost bomb’ as one of many “tipping points” in danger of pushing global temperatures beyond dangerous levels….

He said that there is evidence of a ‘compost bomb’ around 55 million years ago that caused a huge amount of carbon to be released into the atmosphere all at once.

Scientists are also investigating whether a ‘compost bomb’ caused the peatland fires around Moscow a couple of years ago.

“We know how the compost bomb process works, we think we have seen it in the past, we just do not know what global warming will trigger it or when it will happen, ” he said….

“The further and faster we push temperatures up, the more serious the risks,” he said. “But we simply do not know where these tipping points lie.”

This point was underscored in the final statement:

The past decade has seen the emergence of important areas of new scientific understanding by which to define what we are witnessing:

A1. Humanity’s impact on the Earth system has become comparable to planetary-scale geological processes such as ice ages. Consensus is growing that we have driven the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene, in which many Earth-system processes and the living fabric of ecosystems are now dominated by human activities. That the Earth has experienced large-scale, abrupt changes in the past indicates that it could experience similar changes in the future. This recognition has led researchers to take the first step to identify planetary and regional thresholds and boundaries that, if crossed, could generate unacceptable environmental and social change.

I was also glad to see the statement be as clear as possible that we need to start pricing carbon pollution and valuing ecosystem services:

Recognition of the monetary and non-monetary values of public goods such as ecosystem services, education, health and global common resources such as the oceans and the atmosphere. These must be properly factored into management and decision-making frameworks at the national and sub-national levels to ensure that economic activities do not impose external costs on the global commons. Corrective measures that internalize costs and minimize the impacts on the commons need to be identified and implemented through regulatory and market-based mechanisms.

This is one more international conference by leading experts demanding “urgent and large-scale action” to protect civilization. When will policymakers and the media start listening?

Why Oh Why?

Senator James Inhofe was on the Rachel Maddow Show last night on MSNBC. Senator Inhofe lied with a smug smile as his State suffers from climate warming-induced drought and horrific tornadoes. How is it possible that people in Oklahoma vote for this dangerous charlatan?I can only surmise that these people do not care if their children and grandchildren will suffer through the worst catastrophe humans will ever face.The dangers of climate change, which is ultimately caused by overpopulation, will dwarf any immediate problems we see today since it will almost certainly lead to mass famines caused by the loss of arable land causing world wide migrations on an unprecedented scale,which will in turn lead to wars and probably the use of nuclear weapons, flooding of almost all coastal cities and destruction of infrastructure such as roads, railways and airports,leading to financial collapse of industrialized countries, and eventually almost certainly to the collapse of modern civilization. Neither I nor Imhofe will live to see the worst of this but his 20 grandchildren and their children will.

 And everyone who survives will be asking "Why oh why did they let this happen?".

Climate Change Denial a la Mode

Senator Jim Inhofe is a super religious climate denier who actually has the political power to disrupt our society from making the necessary changes in our way of life to prevent the coming catastrophe. He has just published a book "The Greatest Hoax" with all his dangerous and crazy ideas.

I copy below a review from ThinkProgress.org:

Inhofe: God Says Global Warming Is A Hoax

By Brad Johnson on Mar 9, 2012 at 11:24 am

In a radio interview with Voice of Christian Youth America , Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that his belief that global warming is a hoax is biblically inspired . Promoting his book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Inhofe told interviewer Vic Eliason on Wednesday that only God can change the climate, and the idea that manmade pollution could affect the seasons is “arrogance “:

Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

Listen here:

Inhofe went on to attack evangelical leader Rich Cizik , the former Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, who has made thereligious case for fighting climate change pollution . Inhofe said Cizik has been “exposed as a liberal” and that he is like idolatrous Romans described in the Bible as those who “give up the truth about God for a lie.”

In the interview, Inhofe did not mention he has received $1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $90,950 from Koch Industries.

VCY America also argues that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud , Muslim extremists have infiltrated the federal government, and that the United Nations has engineered the Agenda 21 program to transform human society through population control and energy use.

Gag Me with a Spoon

I just read an article from a whistleblower on "pink slime". My god! (and I'm not even religious!).
I copy below a gut-renching selection from this article:

“Pink slime” is largely made up of connective tissue that used to be reserved only for dog foods. It was not classified as “meat” because it was largely seen as unfit for human consumption. It also contains ammonia, which is used to kill off bacteria so people who eat it do not get sick. ...The meat industry now refers to it as “lean finely textured beef,” but in a government memo USDA scientist Gerald Zirnstein coined the term “pink slime,” which now appears to have stuck.

This week I had two major blows to my psyche: One involved a FedEx package which was held up for a week until the dry ice evaporated and the other one this pink slime revelation. Really, if you can't trust FedEx or your friendly hamburger place, what is left?

The article link is  http://tinyurl.com/7a2ycnr 
 

Climate Change Denial from Republican Presidential Candidate Santorum

As I have said before, the Republican Right has a policy of denying human-caused climate warming and even calling it a "hoax". The latest example is the Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, who thank God has no chance of becoming the president. He is worse than an idiot, since if  he knows better and still says this, he is malicious and even evil. And if he really believes that 95% of all climate scientists are wrong, then he is a true idiot and utterly dangerous since he represents the views of a lot of people in the United States.

I copy below a recent article from the Huffington Post blog:

Rick Santorum: I've Never Believed In The 'Hoax Of Global Warming'

First Posted: 02/ 7/2012 1:39 pm Updated: 02/ 7/2012 1:45 pm

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum targeted primary rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on Tuesday for allegedly buying into the "bogus" science of man-made climate change, while proudly declaring that he himself had never believed in the "hoax of global warming."

At a campaign event in Colorado Springs, Colo., Santorum first took aim at Romney for his support of a regional cap and trade energy pact as Massachusetts governor, a line of attack he previewed over the weekend on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Governor Romney proudly announced that they were the first state, Massachusetts, to put a cap on CO2 emissions in the state of Massachusetts," Santorum said in Colorado, according to Politico , before turning on Gingrich.

"Speaker Gingrich has supported cap and trade for more than a dozen years. Now, he wants business incentives to go along with cap and trade, but he supported cap and trade, and sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and said that global warming had to be addressed by Congress," Santorum continued. "Who is he or who's Governor Romney to be able to go after President Obama? I've never supported even the hoax of global warming."

Gingrich has been battered on the now-notorious spot repeatedly over the course of the campaign. He's gone as far as to call it the "dumbest thing " he's done in the "last four years."

As Think Progress points out , Santorum also gave a more thorough explanation of his views on climate change on Monday.

"If you leave it to Nature, then Nature will do what Nature does, which is boom and bust," Santorum said at an energy summit in Colorado. "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

He then appeared to give credence to the importance of "science and discovery," but only to prevent the "vagaries of nature" that could damage humans' ability to benefit from the planet.

"We are the intelligent beings that know how to manage things and through that course of science and discovery if we can be better stewards of this environment, then we should not let the vagaries of nature destroy what we have helped create," Santorum said.

Read this and weep. I can only surmise that these people want their children and grandchildren to suffer through the worst catastrophe humans will ever face. Maybe with people like this, the human race deserves to be destroyed, but the other life on Earth did not cause  this and does not deserve this fate. 

A True Revolution of the Mind

I have been following from a distance the political battle over intellectual property and freedom of the internet, but yesterday something happened that made me sit up and think. There are two bills with the acronyms, SOPA and PIPA, which are being fiercely  fought for by the Hollywood Film Studios and their literally thousands of lobbyists loaded with money to grease their  passage. And ex Senator Chris Dodd became the head of  the Motion Picture Association of America,  a lobbying group for the five biggest American film studios. I had had the feeling that the old Senate bull, Dodd, was going over to the dark side during  his last days in the Senate, but then Iearned that  some of my favorite Democratic Senators and Congress persons, including Barbra Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Al Franken, Pat Leahy and  Harry Reid, among others from both parties, were sponsors of these bills, and my head began to spin. 

These bills would allow the US Government to protect copyright infringement by blocking entire websites by manipulating the Domain Name Service or DNS system. A letter to Congress from over 100 law professors stated:  
"The Act would allow the government to break the Internet addressing system. The Internet's Domain Name System ("DNS") is a foundational building block upon which the Internet has been built and on which its continued functioning critically depends. The Act will have potentially catastrophic consequences for the stability and security of the DNS." 


It would essentially give our government the same power as used and abused by the Chinese government to counter political discontents. 


I can appreciate the problems with the online piracy of  intellectual property but I also believe that the internet is something special in the intellectual evolution of mankind and exemplifies freedom of speech and freedom of thought  as it is rapidly binding the entire world into a single sentient being. Paper news  media and other forms of non-digital information must learn to adapt to new ways or vanish in the dustbin of history. And media such as movies, books and music, which can be easily digitized must also somehow find new ways to coexist with the chaotic and all-expansive freedom of the internet. 


The power of the internet can be seen in the random appearance of "flash mobs" suddenly coming together in Railroad Stations, city streets and monuments to either make a political point or even to sing song, dance  or read poetry. And most famously, the internet was mainly responsible for the "Arab Spring" revolutions  which deposed and are still deposing long standing dictatorships. China in fact is so worried about the freedom of the internet that it tries to maintain the type of iron grip now being proposed to be given to the US Government, and is overjoyed that the US is considering these bills. 


But suddenly on Wednesday of this week, more than 400 web sites routinely used by millions of people world-wide decided to protest against these bills and simply shut down their sites, while providing users with the phone numbers and emails of all their Federal representatives and Senators. The effect was instant and enormous. The phone systems of almost all the congress people almost collapsed from the irate calls and their email systems overflowed with complaints. And suddenly many congress people turned 180 degrees and decided that these bills were in fact bad and should not be pushed. So in spite of all the financial political contributions from the lobbyists and the power of large corporations and powerful friends, our government representatives saw the power of the people and made up excuses not to vote for these bills. This to me was astounding and opened my eyes to a new way to produce political change in our country. 


I would argue that this may provide the way to maintain democracy and achieve goals in the political process. I finally can see a way forward to achieve progress on fighting, for example, the most serious problem of our civilization, climate warming. The overwhelming power of the truly millions of people using the  internet can clearly do anything. It is true democracy unblemished by Republican filibusters or Tea Party control of the House. For once I am almost an optimist. We can finally stop racism, religious fanaticism,  wars and the invasion of our privacy by the State. Our leaders will be beholden to the people if they want to keep their job, and the people will undergo a learning experience beyond belief. 


This is a true revolution of the mind. 

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The recently passed Defense Authorization Bill contained language that will continue allowing our country to grab anyone they want from anywhere in the world and keep them in prison without charges for as long as they want. It also will allow indefinite detention of US citizens. Everyone is concerned with the detention of US citizens, but I feel that the indefinite detention of anyone in the world is much more serious. It attacks the  very principles our country was founded on. Although President Obama made a "Signing Statement" that the US detention part would not be enforced during his administration, it  said nothing about non-US citizens, and nothing will prevent future Presidents from following this law as written, especially if the Republican right wing extremists gain power.
    I copy below a slightly revised article from "Nation of Change" that expresses my sentiments well:

The irony of it all is way more telling than the State of the Union ad­dress that we will hear in a few weeks. A con­sti­tu­tional lawyer who was freely elected pres­i­dent signs into law an act that be­trays the very prin­ci­ples that the na­tion he rep­re­sents was founded on. While the more cau­tious of us might shy away from the word fas­cism to de­scribe a na­tion’s mil­i­tary hav­ing the right to de­tain cit­i­zens with­out trial, it is cer­tainly not hy­per­bole. There has al­ready been an on­slaught of crit­i­cism re­gard­ing the con­tro­ver­sial Na­tional De­fense Au­tho­riza­tion Act that Con­gress leg­is­lated and Pres­i­dent Obama signed into law.
   His­tor­i­cally, the NDAA was a spend­ing bill that set the an­nual bud­get for the US mil­i­tary. Re­cently, the guar­an­teed pas­sage of the NDAA has been used by leg­is­la­tors—in spite of ve­he­ment rhetor­i­cal op­po­si­tion by pro­gres­sive and GOP leg­is­la­tors, the bill still passed, un­sur­pris­ingly, with over­whelm­ing sup­port (86-13 with one ab­stain­ing in the Sen­ate; 322-96 with eleven ab­stain­ing in the House)—to craft the poli­cies and pol­i­tics of the war on ter­ror.
   The same day Pres­i­dent Obama signed the NDAA, ac­tivists with Wit­ness Against Tor­ture (WAT) began prepar­ing for a Jan­u­ary 3, 2012 trial to de­fend them­selves against charges stem­ming from a June 2011 protest when they in­ter­rupted House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tive de­lib­er­a­tions on a De­fense Ap­pro­pri­a­tions Bill—a pre­cur­sor to the final NDAA. The rea­son for WAT’s protest was not the pro­vi­sion that al­lows the pres­i­dent to in­def­i­nitely de­tain any­one, any­where, which was not in­cluded in the early drafts of the 2012 mil­i­tary spend­ing bill. Rather WAT was protest­ing the pro­vi­sions in the bill—which did make it into the NDAA—that es­tab­lish the prison in Guan­tanamo Bay as a per­ma­nent fix­ture in U.S. for­eign pol­icy and se­ri­ously ques­tion Amer­ica’s com­mit­ment to human and civil rights. Jour­nal­ist Andy Wor­thing­ton de­scribes the pro­vi­sions that make it near im­pos­si­ble to trans­fer de­tainees for trial in civil­ian courts or re­lease them to for­eign countries.
   The Guardian wrote that, re­gard­ing the NDAA’s po­ten­tial treat­ment of U.S. cit­i­zens as “enemy com­bat­ants,” with­out rights to coun­sel or trial, in the war on ter­ror is sim­ply the re­al­iza­tion of a mis­guided, im­moral, and in­ef­fec­tive do­mes­tic and for­eign re­sponse to ter­ror­ism. The chick­ens are com­ing home to roost. The Amer­i­can legacy of the 2000s is one of tor­ture, il­le­gal do­mes­tic spy­ing, the flout­ing of in­ter­na­tional law, and un­con­scionable de­ten­tion prac­tices. Mean­while, non­vi­o­lent al­ter­na­tives for ef­fec­tively deal­ing with ter­ror­ists—such as a long-stalled po­ten­tial re­ha­bil­i­ta­tion cen­ter for Guan­tanamo de­tainees or peer-group cen­ters that chal­lenge and shift the nar­ra­tives of Is­lamist ter­ror­ism (such as Abdul Haqq Baker and the STREET cen­ter that WNV fa­vorite Tina Rosen­ re­ported —are not given much of­fi­cial con­sid­er­a­tion.
   In­stead, the net of re­pres­sion con­tin­ues to grow as it ex­tends across the planet and all its peo­ples. The U.S. and its peo­ple have not been trou­bled much by the men, women, and even chil­dren who lan­guish in its mil­i­tary pris­ons—se­cret or oth­er­wise—in Cuba and count­less other global lo­ca­tions. As Wit­ness Against Tor­ture ac­tivists, whom I am join­ing, begin an 11-day Fast for Jus­tice on be­half of all those in­def­i­nitely de­tained, will or­di­nary Amer­i­cans rec­og­nize the global as­sault on free­dom that the Bush and Obama ad­min­is­tra­tions have waged for over a decade?
As Gitmo proves, the pol­icy and prac­tice of in­def­i­nite de­ten­tion is not new.It’s only the lat­est in a long, ugly suc­ces­sion of un­just de­ten­tions rang­ing from Japan­ese in­tern­ment camps to slave plan­ta­tions and Abu Ghraib. Even if Amer­i­cans are aghast at the NDAA’s con­tents that quite clearly con­tra­dict the con­sti­tu­tional right of habeas cor­pus we hold so dear, it is fool­ish to think this is just a naïve lapse of judg­ment by the keep­ers of our best in­ter­ests. The cat was let out of the bag a long time ago. Re­call the fa­mous words of Mar­tin Niemöller , the anti-Nazi pas­tor and paci­fist:


First they came for the com­mu­nists,and I didn’t speak out be­cause I wasn’t a com­mu­nist. Then they came for the trade union­ists,and I didn’t speak out be­cause I wasn’t a trade union­ist.
Then they came for the Jews,and I didn’t speak out be­cause I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.


We have failed to speak out for pris­on­ers de­tained the world over. Pres­i­dent Obama en­ters the final year of his first term, and his land­mark ex­ec­u­tive order to close Guan­tanamo has been re­duced to lit­tle more than a prank played on hope­ful sup­port­ers. 171 men re­main im­pris­oned — more than 60 of whom were cleared for re­lease years ago by Pres­i­dent Bush. It is not too late to speak out for them—or our­selves, for that mat­ter—but the sun is set­ting and the dark night of in­def­i­nite de­ten­tion threat­ens to rise on friend and foe alike.