In Defense of the Liberal Arts

TheAtlantic.com

Correspondents: Lane Wallace 19 May 2009

Have the Humanities Become an Unaffordable Luxury?

The Afterlife of George W. Bush

 

Tony Gutierrez / AP

The Simple Life: Bush on the way to his Dallas home

CNN's Jack Cafferty says "the pain won't go away" until Bush administration's misdeeds are addressed.

" George W. Bush and his accomplices damaged this country like it's never been damaged before. And it's not just the phony war in Iraq or the torture memos that justified waterboarding. It's millions of missing emails and the constant use of executive privilege and signing statements."

Senate Leaders Balk at Closing Guantánamo Prison

Moving to avoid a bitter partisan feud, Senate Democratic leaders have decided to remove from a war spending bill the $80 million that President Obama had requested to close the detention center for terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

House Democrats had already removed the money from their version of the $96.7 billion military spending measure, which will finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some other national security programs through Sept. 30. It was overwhelmingly approved last week by the House.

The Senate had included the money in its version of the legislation, headed for a vote this week, but with tight restrictions that for now at least would have barred the transfer of prisoners tothe United States.

Both the House and Senate had directed the White House to provide a more detailed plan for closing the detention center and relocating the more than 200 terror suspects still being held there. The Obama administration has announced plans to revive the military tribunals first proposed by the Bush administration, but lawmakers were still clamoring for more information about what would happen to the terror suspects after the Guantánamo prison was closed.

In his first week in office, Mr. Obama signed an order for the prison to be closed by Jan. 22, 2010.

Senate Republicans had signaled their plans to propose several amendments related to the Guantánamo camp when the military spending bill reached the Senate floor later this week. Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, and other Republicans at an Appropriations Committee hearing last Thursday that they were preparing amendments and would hold back from offering them to avoid delaying the bill.

The White House has urged Congress to finish work on the bill this week and get it to the president’s desk. But that timetable seemed unrealistic given the differences between the House and Senate measures. The removal of the money to close the Guantánamo camp eliminates one of the major differences between the two bills and heads off would could have been an angry and protracted debate on the Senate floor.

The fight over what to do with the terror suspects would also likely have drawn further attention to the criticism by House Republicans of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, over when she first learned of the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation techniques and whether she should have done more to stop them.

Dominic Lawson: When liberals advocate torture

This depersonalisation of the unborn child is tellingly similar to the view of terrorist suspects taken by those who advocated barbaric interrogation practices

The Obama administration is expanding a program initiated by President George W. Bush aimed at checking the immigration status of virtually every person booked into local jails. In four years, the measure could result in a tenfold increase in illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and identified for deportation, current and former U.S. officials said.

By matching inmates' fingerprints to federal immigration databases, authorities hope to pinpoint deportable illegal immigrants before they are released from custody. Inmates in federal and state prisons already are screened. But authorities generally lack the time and staff to do the same at local jails, which house up to twice as many illegal immigrants at any time and where inmates come and go more quickly.

The effort is likely to significantly reshape immigration enforcement, current and former executive branch officials said. It comes as the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress vow to crack down on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, rather than those who otherwise abide by the law.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has made it "very clear" that her top priority is deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, said David J. Venturella, program director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"We mean this, we're serious about it, and we believe we need to put in an all-out effort to get this done," said Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee for homeland security. He has led calls to remove illegal immigrants convicted of crimes after their sentences are served.

The program began as a pilot effort in October and operates in 48 counties across the country, including Fairfax County. This year, fingerprints from 1 million local jail bookings will be screened under the program. It also operates Dallas, Houston, Miami, Boston and Phoenix, according to ICE, and will expand to Los Angeles this year and nearly all local jails by the end of 2012.

The effort differs from programs in several Northern Virginia counties where local law enforcement officers have been deputized to question suspects about whether they are in the country legally. In Montgomery County, police provide immigration authorities the names of those arrested on charges of violent crimes and handgun violations.

Under the new program, the immigration checks will be automatic: Fingerprints currently being run through the FBI's criminal history database also will be matched against immigration databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. The effort would not catch people who have never been fingerprinted by U.S. authorities.

Based on the pilot program, the agency estimates that if fingerprints from all 14 million bookings in local jails each year were screened, about 1.4 million "criminal aliens" would be found, Venturella said. That would be about 10 times the 117,000 criminal illegal immigrants ICE deported last year. There are more than 3,100 local jails nationwide, compared with about 1,200 federal and state prisons.

The program, known as Secure Communities, "presents an historic opportunity to transform immigration enforcement," said Julie Myers Wood, who launched it last year while head of ICE.

In his proposed 2010 budget, President Obama asked Congress last week for $200 million for the program, a 30 percent increase that puts it on track to receive $1.1 billion by 2013.

The program could help answer for the first time a question that has been intertwined with debates over immigration policy: How many illegal immigrants in the United States are convicted of non-immigration crimes?

But even some supporters of the program wonder whether it can be implemented smoothly and whether there will be sufficient funding. A surge in deportation cases, noted Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of homeland security for policy, would require more prosecutors, immigration judges, detention beds and other resources.

Venturella also acknowledged that integrating federal, state and local databases is complex and that the capabilities of local jurisdictions vary. Some counties may take several years to be linked in.

"It's a good program. It's a very expensive program," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that advocates tighter immigration controls. "I don't know if it's feasible or sensible for all state and local governments."

Venturella said ICE will give priority to deporting the most dangerous offenders: national security risks or those convicted of violent crimes. Based on initial projections, the agency estimates that 100,000 of these are "Level 1 offenders" and that deporting them would cost $1.1 billion over four years. Removing all criminal illegal immigrants would cost $3 billion, ICE estimated last year.

Critics say that deporting the worst criminal illegal immigrants, by itself, does not go far enough because it would not fully address the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States or deter further illegal immigration.

"If the Obama administration abandons immigration enforcement in all but the most serious criminal cases, then they will create a de facto amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and will encourage even more illegal immigration," said Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

He said the Obama administration should complete construction of a border fence, enforce laws against hiring illegal workers and deport illegal immigrants before they commit crimes.

Amnesty International and immigrant advocates warn that the change could lead to immigration checks in other arenas and the "criminalization" of illegal immigration.

Tom Barry, an analyst for the Center for International Policy, a nonprofit research and policy institute in Washington, said the initiative could sweep up foreign-born U.S. residents who have served time for offenses but were not deported.

"Many, many legal immigrants are going to be pulled into this net even for minor violations that they're booked for -- traffic violations, drunk driving, whatever -- and after they've lived here 10 or 20 years, they're going to be deported," Barry said.

By checking all people who are booked, supporters say, the program avoids racial profiling. It also could stem what some see as overzealous efforts by some local authorities who, through a $60 million-a-year ICE training program, have stepped up their pursuit of illegal immigrants through measures such as neighborhood sweeps and traffic stops.

"The administration should reassert the primacy of the federal government's role in enforcing immigration law," said Donald Kerwin, vice president for programs at the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington. He said, however, that such action should be coupled with efforts to find lawyers for immigrants in deportation proceedings. Unlike in criminal courts, the immigration court system does not provide public defenders.

Labor unions find themselves card-checkmated

May 19, 2009

Reporting from Washington — In the Ozark Mountain town of Rogers, Ark., more than 250 business owners gathered for lunch at a construction company last month to focus on what they saw as a major threat -- a proposal in Congress to make it easier to form labor unions.

At each place setting, attendees found pre-stamped postcards and pre-written letters to be sent to Arkansas' U.S. senators, Democrats Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, who had supported the labor bill in the past. After lunch, the business owners were ushered to computers to send e-mail messages as well.

Five days later came the good news: Two Senate votes had been stripped from the pro-union bill. Lincoln said she would oppose it outright, while Pryor declared the current version "dead" and said he would look for compromises.

Today, thanks to those and other defections, key components of the bill are in serious jeopardy. And the legislation has produced one of the biggest surprises in Washington since Democrats swept the White House and Congress: The nation's labor unions, which organized so effectively last year to help elect President Obama, have been outmaneuvered so far on their top priority by their opponents in the business community.

"We were outspent, outhustled and outorganized," said one chagrined union advisor who was not authorized to speak by name.

"The legislation is severely challenged," said John Wilhelm, hospitality president of Unite Here -- the textile, hotel and culinary workers' union. "The unified business community has been so strident about the issue, they have effectively achieved solidarity among Republican senators."

The labor movement, somewhat divided, he said, has let Democratic support drift away.

No legislation is more important to the unions than the Employee Free Choice Act, which would ease the rules for forming bargaining units and, union leaders believe, help the depleted labor movement gain new members. Under its core provisions, unions could start a new bargaining unit at a company if a majority of workers simply signed cards requesting one, a process known as "card check."

The new system would eliminate the company's option to call for secret ballot elections, which union officials have long argued give companies the ability to manipulate and intimidate workers before a unionization vote.

Businesses fear that card check would leave workers vulnerable to coercion by union officials.

Organized labor believed it could push card check into law.

In 2007, the measure passed the House and gained more than 40 cosponsors in the Senate. Now, with even more Democrats in the Senate and Obama in the White House, the unions saw the odds in their favor. Obama's campaign stump speech last fall included strong support for the legislation.

But once he was elected, labor leaders made a fateful decision. Originally, they had planned to keep in place their extensive network of field organizers, who had just worked to elect Democratic candidates, and ask them to build pressure on lawmakers to vote for card check.

Instead, they changed course. The labor groups scaled back, partly to give Obama time to get his bearings amid the deepening economic crisis.

Business groups, meanwhile, had started work well before the election and did not stop. They feared that card check would lead to new unions and higher labor costs. Opponents included retailers, such as Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, as well as restaurant chains, construction firms and hotels.

More than 500 business and conservative organizations had formed the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace to coordinate an array of trade associations and other groups fighting card check. Since 2007, the umbrella group has spent as much as $10 million. Its members include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which on its own earmarked $20 million in 2008 and 2009 to defeat card check, on top of $35 million to elect business-friendly lawmakers in 2008.

Half a dozen other groups backed by corporate, GOP or conservative ideological interests have also joined the fray.

Before labor groups had fully engaged this winter, the allied business groups successfully cast the legislation as undemocratic: How could Congress oppose secret-ballot elections? They also hired well-connected lobbyists. For example, Wal-Mart, one of the nation's largest employers and a staunch foe of unionization efforts, deployed Lincoln's former chief of staff, as well as Pryor's former legislative director.

But the most important part of the business strategy was coaxing thousands of small companies to pressure their lawmakers, particularly moderate Democratic senators such as Lincoln and Pryor.

Soon, Democrats were complaining at their weekly caucus meetings of being whipsawed by the powerful lobbying on both sides. The issue seemed to be everywhere. Even at a meeting on agriculture, one Lincoln aide recalled, card check would be raised prominently.

When it came to key senators, business interests outmuscled labor.

Lincoln, for example, reported overwhelmingly more calls and letters from business interests and their supporters than from the union side. And thanks to "airlift" programs run by the Chamber of Commerce and allied groups, some key senators received far more personal visits in Washington from card-check opponents than from supporters.

Ten airlifts came from Arkansas alone -- on top of the 100 Arkansas business officials who arrived in April for an annual dinner with the state's delegation.

The unions stepped up their pressure. On a frigid, blustery day in early April, 100 union members gathered outside Lincoln's office in Little Rock and chanted for her to support the legislation.

"Who can give it to us?" a union organizer with a bullhorn asked.

"Sen. Lincoln!" shouted the union members.

But it was too late. Lincoln, the target of so many personal visits in Washington by business interests, had already decided to oppose the legislation.

Another target for both sides in the debate was Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who was then a Republican. Like Lincoln, he had cosponsored the card-check bill in 2007.

Pressure on him came from groups such as the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Assn., which represents grocery stores. In March, it reported to its members that Specter appeared to be "on the fence." The group urged: "Your associates, friends, family and neighbors should flood Sen. Specter's office with letters, phone calls and e-mail messages."

Later that month, Specter announced that he would oppose the legislation in its current form.

At least a half-dozen senators who supported the legislation in 2007 either opposed the bill this year or expressed reservations. That left the unions short of the 60 Senate votes they need to overcome a bill-blocking filibuster.

With its chances fading, labor became divided. Wilhelm complained that another union, the Service Employees International Union, undermined labor unity by signaling openness to a compromise before the rest of the movement was consulted. The SEIU rejected the criticism, with its president, Andy Stern, saying in an interview that he and other major unions coordinated closely on card check.

The legislation's chief sponsor, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), is trying to fashion a modified bill that can win the needed 60 votes.

One possible compromise: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a former cosponsor who now has reservations about the bill, would retain the card-signing process for workers to form unions. But, to ease concerns about coercion, she proposes that workers mail the cards to a third party rather than turn them in at the workplace.

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

State senators oppose Obama nominee

 

Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen has the support of Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. Sen. Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind. won't oppose her nomination, according to a spokesman.

- the state senators said Dawn Johnsen's advocacy of abortion rights "is more than simply pro-choice -- she is pro-choice in an extremely radical way."

Associated Press

Resignation in British Expense Scandal

After days of mounting pressure over disclosures about legislators’ expenses, Michael Martin, the speaker of the House of Commons, said he would step down in June.

Read Today's Articles 

  Netanyahu responds after Obama's tweak

WASHINGTON — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday he is ready to resume peace talks with the Palestinians immediately, but any agreement is contingent on their acceptance of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

His comments came after a meeting with President Barack Obama, who bluntly told the Israeli leader it was time to get back to the negotiating table.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks towards President Barack Obama as he speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Monday.

(AP)

Netanyahu and President Barack Obama met for more than two hours at the White House and focused on Mideast peace talks, Iran’s nuclear program and the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Obama said he expects a positive response from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year. The president said the United States wanted to bring Iran into the world community, but declared “we’re not going to have talks forever.”

At the same time, Obama said bluntly that it was important that Netanyahu, a hard-liner on peace negotiations with the Palestinians, to restart the stalled Mideast peace talks. While his language was gentle, Obama’s words were notable nonetheless for being made in public.

“We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested to the prime minister that he has a historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure,” Obama said. “That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they have previously agreed to.”

Added Obama: “I think that there is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity and this moment.”

Netanyahu said he was ready to resume peace talks with the Palestinians immediately but said any agreement depended on their acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. It was not immediately clear in the way he phrased the response whether Netanyahu was demanding that as a precondition for talks.

“There’s never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today,” Netanyahu said, speaking of a sense of urgency felt throughout the Arab world about Iran’s nuclear program.

On Iran, Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against the Islamic Republic if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Washington and many key allies contend Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.

“The important thing is to make sure there is a clear timetable, at which point we say these talks don’t seem to be making any clear progress,” Obama said. “If that hasn’t taken place I think the international community will see that it’s ... Iran itself that is isolating themselves.”

Netanyahu did not respond publicly to Obama’s comment that Israel must stop expanding Jewish settlements in West Bank. He also refused again to say he was ready to negotiate a so-called two-state solution to the nearly 60-year dispute with the Palestinians. The plan, endorsed by the United States and other parties pushing for peace between the historic foes, calls for establishment of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel.

Palestinians offered praise for Obama but expressed disappointment with Netanyahu’s remarks.

Netanyahu “did not mention a commitment to a two-state solution, and we need to see American action against this policy,” said Nail Abu Redden, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who visits the White House on June 28.

Saeb Erekat, the top Palestinian negotiator, issue a similar assessment:

“Mr. Netanyahu failed to mention the two-state solution, signed agreements and the commitment to stop settlement activity. He said he wants the Palestinians to govern themselves. The question to Mr. Netanyahu is, ’How can I govern myself while your occupation continues everywhere in the West Bank and Gaza, and how can I govern myself under your wall, roadblocks and settlement activities?”’

 Obama tells Israel: stop expanding