Response to Pat foley's Opinion Piece in Georgetown News-Graphic

Attempts at Influence in Georgetown, KY

The article which sparked this response can be found at: http://www.georgetownnews.com/articles/2009/04/26/opinion/doc49f237f637a81074540100.txt

In the article, Georgetown, KY's former City Attorney, Pat Foley, alleges that Georgetown's City Employees, particularly those of the Police and Fire Departments still haven't realized the need for economy in their departmental budgets. The departments have postponed all new big-ticket equipment purchases and resorted to maintenance as opposed to replacement otherwise. Their have been severe, even dangerous, lay-offs. Individual officers and firefighters are now responsible for a larger than ever portion of their insurance costs.

In 2006, Georgetown, KY employed nearly 60 officers, it now fields 37; Georgetown's recommended police strength is 50. In 2006, Georgetown's average officer's experience was 15 years; today it is 5. There is current talk of reducing the city's share of police insurance by 10%, with the officers picking this up. For a third year officer with a spouse and two children, this would result in the officer's insurance costing 34% of his gross pay.

Georgetown's firefighters have suffered similar losses and are also encouraged by Pat Foley to give up more.

Pat Foley is a member of one the larger property owning families in Georgetown. Most of this property is investment property, earning profits for Pat and her family. Pat foley wants to see Georgetown's budget slashed to the point that an increased real property tax will not occur. Interestingly, the real property tax in Georgetown is 1/3 that of the surrounding county and nearby towns. Realistically, the real property tax could be doubled in Georgetown and entirely solve the budget problems while retaining competitiveness in relation to local tax rates.

Pat Foley also became the City Attorney in January, 2007, coming in with a new Mayor. Interestingly, the scandal of the Suffoletta Aquatic Park, mentioned briefly in my response below, was set into motion just as Pat Foley suddenly and unexpectedly left her position with the city in the Summer of 2007, citing the ubiquitous "family issues". The Suffoletta Water Park is the single event that pushed the city's budget woes over the brink. Employment levels, general expenditures, payroll; none of these caused the current deficit. The abuse, fraud, and waste that haunted the water park's planning and construction is the undisputed cause.

And now that I have provided some background, I now provide my response:

Over the course of the past year of my residence here in Georgetown, I have heard many farcical, fallacious, preposterous, and unsound arguments presented in the City Council Chamber and read as many in the pages of the Georgetown News-Graphic.

I find it interesting that the voice calling loudest for the city employees to do their share in alleviating Georgetown’s budget woes is a former city official who left immediately after city budget problems were fixed as a soon to be sure thing.

The city employees are not responsible for the city’s economic turmoil; the city government is; yet this voice calls for accountability where responsibility does not rest. Why does this voice continually call for others to fix problems that seem to be linked to her time as City Attorney?

In Pat Foley’s stated opinions, it seems that she is willing to see small businesses fail, crime rates increase, and the city burn so that she and hers don’t have to pay more in taxes. Pat Foley has continually called for others, usually less well off than her, to make sacrifices in order that she and hers, being large property owners in Georgetown, not have to make sacrifices of their own. Also, her calls for cuts have thus far always focused on the productive rather than the administrative end of city payrolls. Could her aim be to slash city spending to the point where the realistic and very necessary increase in real property taxes not be realized? The pattern of Ms. Foley’s lobbying indicates a real and concerted effort to shift the burden of the city’s financial woes onto narrow groups such as local restaurants and city employees, while ignoring the very real need to distribute the burden as equitably as possible. A doubling of the current real property tax, for city property owners, would cost the average Georgetown homeowner approximately $50-$75 per year, an individual pittance compared to her proposals, but a much more equally distributed burden. Yet this fairer and more agreeable increase would satisfy the city’s increased revenue need in one stroke.

This city cuts its police presence while its gang signs increase. Outside of City Hall, I have not been in a Georgetown public restroom that has not been “tagged” by gang organizations. Now I hear a call for additional cutbacks in the agencies that protect this community. Regarding public safety, payroll has been harmed enough. Do not further endanger this community with further cuts in the police and fire protective services. While the best personnel can and will bring success with less than perfect equipment, the best equipment in the world is meaningless in untrained or unwilling hands. There is absolutely no sane reason for talking about further cuts into protective services’ payrolls. Doing so is tragically irresponsible.

We all know, or should, that the city’s budget problems stem from one singular event: the Suffoletta water park. If the city had not overpaid for that project, there would be no budget crisis. Speaking of the water park; when a $2million project costs $7million it is practically a given that someone received a kickback- the question is who?

Bagram Airbase, habeas corpus, and State Secrets

Another complication in foreign policy for President Obama has been the non-status of those detained in Afghanistan at Bagram Airbase. Technically, assertions made by both this and the previous administrations that the facility is in a war zone and therefore exempt from habeas corpus are legally correct. The problem for the policy lies in the fact that there are people detained at Bagram whose captivity did not originate in Afghanistan, nor did these detainees come to be incarcerated as a result of combat related activities. Under these two conditions, the assertion for denial of habeas corpus becomes suspect. US District Judge John D. Bates on April 2^nd ruled that for those not taken as a direct consequence of local combat-related activities habeas corpus should and will apply. There are at least three detainees at Bagram for whom this ruling applies. The administration and the military must take care in the use of the Bagram facility. If it seems that Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition policies are simply shifted to Bagram, then the campaign promises of President Obama have meant nothing. If the Obama administration fails in this, then the Republicans and conservatives will be able to re-coup their recent losses and re-establish their failed policies and War of Terror upon the world.

 

As I have written previously, the current administration’s continuance of slightly revamped Bush policy in counterterrorism activities is worrisome. Closing Guantanamo as an extra-territorial holding facility and ending secret prisons, supposedly already done in 2006, are great improvements, as is the executive order banning the use of harsh interrogation methods. But it seems there is something of a disconnect in the overall Obama reorganization. It seems in some ways that Obama is paying lip-service to the promise of reform in the execution of the War on Terror.

 

Claiming State Secrets in refusing to disclose information to United Kingdom courts over a matter of lawsuit brought by an admittedly wrongly imprisoned former detainee is also troubling. Although defense of the US against lawsuits and preservation of National Security secrecy are parts of the President’s responsibilities, this matter could have been handled with better response than a flat out denial. The UK court could have received sufficiently redacted evidence that would still have allowed the individual’s case to proceed. This is the government’s responsibility as in the original case, the US acted as prosecutor/accuser in asserting its right to hold the man. The UK case is not isolated; across the world there are hundreds of cases in which the current administration has claimed State Secrets in lawsuits alleging abuse, wrongful detention and extraordinary rendition. In many instances, it seems that judges have begun to side with those abused by Bush-era policy in the War on Terror. Many of these judges were Bush appointees, so there may be something of a political play in ruling against the Obama administration’s stance, but, then again, some of these rulings were made before the inauguration, but still after the election. The potential political dimension of this should encourage the current administration to drop the State Secrets claim and provide useful redacted documentation, if merely to blunt charges of continuing opacity.

 

Of course, full compliance with requests for release of even redacted documents produces another problematic situation. Reparations are necessary for those aggrieved through wrongful detention and other legacies of the Bush administration. Those wrongfully and illegally taken up in the War on terror are entitled to compensation for the many violations enacted upon them. However, successful litigation opens the door for more litigation and threatens a floodgate of legitimate and illegitimate suits. The potential cost to the US government is in the millions, easily.

 

These positions which President Obama has taken are not helpful to the improved image that he seeks for America to project. But, many on the Democratic side of the American political fence miss the complications inherent with true transparency when dealing with foreign and national security policy. Though I am somewhat disappointed with everything I have discussed here, I realize a few things that many on the left may have missed. I don’t have all the facts, and I’m not sure that I can call the administration wrong. It appears that all of these policy similarities run counter to what I expected from President Obama, but there are certain elements of these decisions over which I will never, and rightfully so, receive sufficient information to make the call. Most on the left are in the same position; they simply do not have enough information to have an informed opinion. An uninformed opinion as is useful and fact-based as a Rush Limbaugh diatribe. If we are to move forward, there are some areas where we are going to need to exhibit trust, but always with a healthy dose of skepticism. President Obama has already done much to restore the rule of law in prosecuting the War on Terror. He has strengthened our international relations and helped bolster our flagging reputation in the community of nations. Despite all the flap over bank bailouts, the market is beginning to show signs of recovering from its freefall. From these observations, I am able to suggest trust, but I still retain vigilant skepticism on anything where government’s actions seem suspect.

 

Here are some questions I ponder that help me query these and other events and policies:

 

What is there about this issue that I don’t know?

What is there that, for security reasons, I will never know?

Are the security reasons valid?

How is my personal bias affecting my judgment?

Is there something that is unmentioned but obvious?

Why is it unmentioned?

Is the unmentioning deliberate or accidental?

Again, why?

How do I rationally justify my position?

In all of this, I should mitigate my passion with reason and my reason with compassion.

 

 

President Obama: torture Revisited

President Obama has recently announced that he is open to the idea of investigating and ultimately prosecuting Bush administration officials who gave support to justifications and the policies that permitted the use of torture. This announcement comes after weeks of mainstream protest over Obama’s earlier announcement of seeking answers but not necessarily prosecutions for the individual agents and operators who actually conducted the enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration. The original statement on amnesty for torturers was vague enough to allow Obama to shift the focus to the leadership of the torture justification hierarchy in the face of the public resistance to the idea of simply letting people go.

In looking to the future, as Obama has stated he wants his administration to do, one must often times engage the past. This was demonstrated in post-WWII Germany and the Nuremberg Trials. When one wants to make a clean break with the past, it is necessary to address and prosecute the abuses of the past to ensure prevention for future generations. This is what the law, both domestically and internationally, has come to tell us; and it is rightly what we as a people now expect. This isn’t some knee jerk reaction to the headiness of obtaining power; it is the rightful and necessary reconciliation of what the US stands for, legally and philosophically, and how the Bush administration abused those principles. It is must never be allowed that the government servant’s immunity from civil litigation as a consequence of job-related actions be translated into criminal immunity. It must also never be allowed that governmental service at high level proscribe efforts at prosecution in such an obvious case of abuse of fundamental legal and ethical principles. Finally, it must not be allowed that high office be a shield against investigation and prosecution for criminal abuse of the law, as this abrogates the principle of equal protection under the law and declares privileged protection.

There are many reasons for Obama to prefer not opening this door, regardless of what he may have said on the campaign trail. There are ramifications for the Presidency and governance in general in holding the previous officials accountable for their actions. Some of the ramifications are becoming visible in the GOP’s admittedly weak call for investigation, not only for the responsible chain of command, but also for legislators, including many Democrats, who had knowledge of the interrogation procedures through their membership in various intelligence committees and sub-committees. Another worry is that the precedent set would possibly permit the later introduction of wholly partisan investigations and prosecutions over trivialities. It is possible, that, if not carefully managed, the prosecution of former Bush administration officials over the abuses of human and civil rights under the various War on Terror policies, subsequent administrations may be victimized by out of office partisan witch hunts. Fear of partisan retribution for later administrations has been part of the reason for the new administration’s reluctance to fully engage the issues of War on Terror- justified abuse of foreign and American laws as well as citizens and their rights.

No less an authority than John McCain, tortured himself in Vietnam, has claimed that Bush era enhanced interrogation techniques constitute torture. Though senator McCain’s torture was more physically and mentally egregious and dangerous than the recent US policy provided for, his opinion on this matter counts. He personally understands that all of these techniques are damaging to the dignity and integrity of people, and that such methods are not acceptable practice for a nation of law. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines torture as: a) anguish of body or mind b) something that causes agony or pain. This is their primary definition. The policies of the Bush administration meet these criteria. The Geneva Convention Against Torture defines torture in Part 1, Article 1: “For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Here too, the Bush policies meet the criteria. Whether the “enemy combatants” fit the role of Enemy Prisoners of War or not is a non-argument. The US has laws prohibiting torture of anyone; there is absolutely no body of writing or law which can be used to justify the actions conducted under the Bush administration. Attempting to conduct illegal and deplorable acts outside of US territory is still punishable by US law. And as the decisions to permit these acts were made on US territory, in Washington, DC, then there is certainly jurisdictional authority.

The United States has a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to prosecute those responsible for these abuses. There is absolutely no way around this fact, and President Obama must lay aside fears of future retribution to ensure against acts of future violation. As Shepard Smith said, emphatically and repeatedly, “This is America, we don’t torture!” It is against everything we are, and if even a former President must go to prison over it, then let the law prevail.

H-P/Compaq Disappoints

Okay, I’m back to writing after an absence enforced by injury compounded by the crash of my “reliable” computer. I attribute the bulk of this hiatus to the unreliability and poor performance of both H-P/Compaq products and service. This laptop suffered a fatal hard drive lock up just two months off warranty and after less than a year of actual use. That the lock up was physical indicates that the problem was the result of manufacturer’s defect. My brother is licensed to work on Compaq products, but their service center never replied to him regarding the acquisition of the “tattoo” code necessary to match a new hard drive to the motherboard. So, he sent this machine to a shop, and they it took three weeks to resolve the issues. Because of these issues, occurring little more than a year after original purchase, I will not ever again purchase an H-P/Compaq product other than ink for my current printer. And I will not recommend that anyone else do so either. I am seriously considering a total conversion to Apple, as Hewlett-Packard products are so ubiquitous to the Microsoft platform.