Impeach, Convict & Prosecute

I don’t know how many of you have the time or inclination (or a flat-rate long distance plan), but if you would like to join me, this is the action I am taking today:

I am calling the Democratic members (and Ron Paul) of two subcommittees (which appear from their names at least to be a bit redundant):

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs‘ Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight

and

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs

Anyway, I’m calling them to insist that their duty of oversight with regard to foreign affairs includes a responsibility to censure or otherwise punish the President for violation of Public Law 107-243 (which was popularly known as The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq), which authorized the President to use military force in Iraq pursuant to two specific provisions:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

Undoubtedly, any threat to the US which was ever purported to exist from Iraq was removed when Saddam Hussein and his government were removed from power, and it has now become a matter of public record (and some of us knew long before the invasion ) that Iraq never posed a military threat to the United States. Furthermore, the UN Security Council resolutions of which the previous government of Iraq was held to be in violation all pertained to that previous government, and not the current government, which was established by elections and assembled over a year ago. Also, even before that government was seated, the government which was held to be in violation ceased to exist four years ago.

THEREFORE: The President of the United States, having kept an offensive military force in Iraq well beyond the existence of these conditions, and indeed well beyond a reasonable amount of time after the expiration of these conditions to have removed the offensive military forces, is in violation of US law, and should be punished appropriately, through censure, impeachment, or some other legal proceeding before Congress.

Below is a spreadsheet with the names and phone numbers of the Congress members I am calling. Please join me if you can.

Peace

1	House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Iran

It hasn’t been in the news much in the last few days, but it is still out there.  Our current sad excuse for a president, and many candidates vying for the position for the 2008 race, from both of the “major” parties ,have made statements indicating that attacking Iran could be an option as a means of preventing that nation from getting nuclear weapons.  Even saying such things at this stage is premature and irresponsible, especially when nobody has made any serious or creative efforts at alternative strategies.  So, here’s my idea.

Let’s begin by trying to imagine the cost, strictly in financial terms, of such an attack.  While some of the talk has been of “strategic strikes,” anyone capable of rational thought should realize that it cannot end there.  While the ultimate strategy may fall far short of the efforts in Iraq, it would still cost many billions of dollars.  How many? I don’t know.

Now, let’s try to predict the cost of fitting every house of sufficient construction in Iran with a photovoltaic solar roof.  Probably very expensive… probably in the billions.

Iran’s government claims that it wants nuclear energy only for “peaceful” purposes.  However, even “peaceful” nuclear energy creates nuclear waste and other environmental damage, and is more harmful to the people than going without power.  Solar power, on the other hand, is renewable and causes no noticeable adverse environmental hazards. Having a solar roof usually will entirely take care of a household’s energy needs (even here in America, and we are one of the most energy wasteful societies on the planet), and puts surplus energy back into the grid.  Having every household in Iran outfitted with such a roof would probably handle all of the country’s domestic energy needs, and would certainly obviate any need for nuclear energy.

If the Iranian government should turn down such an offer, it would make their intentions plain, and give the world community a new place from which to negotiate.

While we’re at it, why not outfit all the houses in the US as well?  We could all drive electric cars, and save billions every year in energy consumption, and break our dependence on foreign oil.

Drug War

Without going into why drugs, especially marijuana, should be decriminalized and regulated more like other drugs such as pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and alcohol, I am concerned at the moment with a practical solution to the issue of drug crops in other countries.  While our government, through several administrations, has simply tried to create ever more restrictive policies at home, and ever more militaristic ones abroad, we have never tried, as far as I know, a truly practical and simple approach to the issue. Whether we are talking about poppies in Afghanistan, coca in Colombia and its neighbors, or marijuana in any of the various places it is grown, our government could simply use the money that would otherwise be allocated for its militaristic tactics that do not work, and re-routing those funds into purchasing those crops, guaranteeing farmers that they would sell all their crops, albeit perhaps at a negotiated price. This could take off the streets nearly all the crops that are currently going into the black market, becoming a social and legal problem not only in the US but all over the world, and funding gangs and other criminals.

The government could then sell whatever portions of the crops to pharmaceutical companies, as dictated by the market, using the profits from these sales to pay down debts, enhance public services and/or reduce taxes. Furthermore, the reduction of the legal problems associated with these drugs would save even more money.

To prevent this policy from creating a greater demand for these crops in the market, it would also seem beneficial to research other crops that could be grown in the areas where these drug crops are currently cultivated, and offering farmers an equivalent or higher rate of return for these crops, even if it is not consistent with current “market prices” for these alternative crops.  Also, farmers in other parts of the world who might already be growing these alternative crops would also need to be paid the “new market” prices for their crops. To prevent the entire financial burden of this policy from falling entirely on the United States, many other national governments who would benefit from it in comparable fashion could be brought in as partners. These “alternative” crops could then be sold back to the private sector, at cost in the case of crops whose prices have been artificially inflated, and at market value for any crops which have been bought at or under market value.

What’s wrong with amnesty?

What’s wrong with amnesty? The right-wing anti-immigrant lobby keeps harping on “amnesty” as if the worst possible thing that we as a nation could do would be to offer amnesty to the immigrants who are already here living and working. While I am trying my best to look at this issue from the perspective of one who believes that nation-states are legitimate entities, and that national borders should be respected, even then it seems to me that the most effective solution to the “problem” is an amnesty program.

An amnesty program would allow those who have immigrated here for reasons that are otherwise legitimate to come forward and be documented. This would leave only a small fraction of immigrants who would still have reason to remain undocumented. This would have several beneficial effects: greatly diminishing the “black market” for labor, which diminishes pay and safety standards for American workers, as well as simply removing some jobs from the legitimate job pool; reducing the number of job opportunities available to those who would remain undocumented; and easing the burden on immigration law officers, who would now have fewer people to find, and fewer employers to investigate for violations. This last advantage would also result in the lack of any need to hire thousands more staff, which would save us money.

The simple fact that we have so many undocumented workers living and working in this country is testament to the fact that we have a large black market of jobs available to those without documentation. This black market not offers work and income to undocumented immigrants, but also potentially to Americans and others who may be running from criminal prosecution. Furthermore, because undocumented workers will work for less, and are less likely to complain or bargain about issues like job safety standards, this black market for jobs often cuts these corners. Furthermore, by creating a larger supply of workers, and diminishing the potential supply of legitimate jobs, this also reduces pay and other standards in legitimate jobs, which of course hurts American workers.

However, simply offering amnesty to those who are currently here will not solve the ongoing problem. We must ask ourselves some tough questions that rarely, if ever, are asked in the media or in popular discussions. First, why has this become more of a problem in the recent past? Second, why do so many immigrants choose to enter the country illegally rather than going through the legal channels?

While I do not have readily available statistics, I believe it could be shown that immigration numbers began to increase dramatically after the passage of NAFTA.  This policy allowed American agri-business, living off of government subsidies, which had already displaced most domestic family and other small farms, to move into Mexico and undersell the smaller farms there, which sent farm laborers, especially in the south, into the urban areas looking for work.  Since these laborers would work so cheap, they displaced a significant portion of the southern urban labor force, which pushed them to northern Mexico seeking better wages, which in turn displaced workers there, and sent them into the US to find better wages.

Therefore, part of the solution to our immigration increase is to reverse the effects of NAFTA. I think it should be obvious that the first step in this would be to repeal NAFTA itself.  Then, we need to further counter the effects it has had by enacting in its place a Fair Trade Agreement that will benefit small farmers and small businesses, and thus strengthen the labor market there, making the risks and rewards of illegal immigration less attractive by comparison.
Regarding the question of why so many people choose to immigrate illegally rather than pursuing legal routes for immigration, I do not know the reasons, but I can speculate that at least part of the reason is that we may place limitations on who can enter based on criteria such as professional skills or financial wherewithal, and/or we may limit the number of immigrants per year to an unrealistic number.  My guess is that both of these are factors to some degree, but there may be other reasons as well. However, I would also bet that the vast majority of immigrants would have nothing to hide, and no reason to enter without providing ample documentation if our policy was a more inviting one.  While I realize that there is concern about too many immigrants coming in, and the effects of immigration on the job market for American, it is apparent that undocumented immigrants have a more adverse effect on jobs and other socio-economic factors than any number of legally documented immigrants would.  For many of the same reasons mentioned above for offering amnesty to those who have already immigrated here, having more of an “open border policy” would greatly increase the likelihood that new immigrants would be documented, and would compete in a fairer job market with less adverse effect on wages and working conditions for American workers.

Just like the black market for drugs, policies that create a black market for labor, such as restrictive immigration policies, inevitably lead to more (and worse) problems than they solve.

The Occupation of Iraq is illegal

While the case has long been made that the occupation of Iraq is illegal according to international law, it is also illegal according to U.S. law.  The invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress by Public Law 107-243, which states that the president is authorized to use military force in Iraq to:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”

Both of these provisions have been accomplished: Saddam Hussein’s government was removed from power and Saddam Hussein himself was captured in 2003, and a new government was democratically elected and seated in 2006. Therefore, the continued occupation of military forces in Iraq has been in violation of this law for over a year (the Iraqi parliament took office and assembled in March of last year).

Representative Ron Paul of Texas (who is also a Republican candidate for President) is soon to submit legislation to the House to sunset the authorization to use military force in Iraq, and while I support this proposal, and urge everyone to call or write your Representatives to urge that they also support this measure, it seems to me that it shouldn’t be necessary.  The authorization has already expired due to the facts that:

a. Iraq no longer poses a “continuing threat to the United States” and in fact, we now know that it never did (1); and
b. the regime which was held to be in violation of UN Security Council resolutions no longer exists.

 Rather, I believe that someone in Congress should now propose that the President be found guilty of violating Public Law 107-243 for keeping U.S. military forces in Iraq after the expiration of conditions for which military force was authorized by Congress, and he should be censured, and required to redeploy all American military forces out of Iraq as soon as possible, or face immediate impeachment for violation of this law.

 

(1) Many of us (especially anyone who listened to the facts presented by the Pacifica Network and/or heard statements by Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Mohamed El Baradei, Joseph Wilson, and others)  knew long before the “Iraq War” that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.

States’ rights?

While reading comments posted at http://www.realdemocracy.com/index.html (See Direct Democracy Center link at right), I came across this anti-democracy gem:

“Democracy can only last as a form of government until the people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the Public Coffers.”

I ask, if a true democracy means that all people share equally in the decision-making, and if the public coffers are filled with the people’s money, why would the people simply redistribute it back to themselves? That would be an exercise in pointlessness (similar to a day in the US Army). Why would they have gathered it into the public coffers in the first place if not to use for some public purpose? This same person spends much time, through several communiques with the website’s host, trying to defend the idea that protecting states’ rights, especially through the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution (which changed the selection of US Senators to be done by statewide general election from the previous method of having them chosen by the various states’ legislatures), will somehow preserve the rights of individuals. The host (whom I have contacted, and will hopefully make some contributions here) points out that the Senate “would likely turn into an open, deal-making ‘pork market’ for the states.”

I am inclined to agree with that, but I actually want to use this post to pick a bone with the entire concept of states’ rights. In the earliest days of the United States, the various states which were contemplating uniting under the Constitution were sovereign states, more like nations themselves, so the delegates who were sent to advocate their states’ positions were concerned that their states would retain some degree of autonomy. However, in today’s USA, states are little more than arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. If we are going to create semi-autonomous regions, the old lines that mark the boundaries of the states should be discarded, and we should look at a variety of demographics. Or better yet, make it a truly democratic process. We could create a comprehensive political and economic questionnaire, with questions designed to blur the lines of distinction that have been drawn by our current partisan system, and instead address matters of human concern in a more direct fashion. Then we could analyze those questionnaires’ results geographically, and draw lines that indicate distinct areas of common viewpoints. These could then be our “states,” and they could decide democratically whether to remain united to the other states, to secede and operate as an entirely sovereign state, or to join together with other seceding states to form an alternate union. There is no logical reason I can see why the United States should not be several distinct nations, divided into several semi-autonomous states, but unified under a treaty of mutual protection and trade agreements, but I am open to discussion.

An even simpler way

Another even simpler idea that could begin the process of transforming our political process into a more democratic one would be to eliminate the current Representative Districts, and just have each state send a delegation of five Representatives to the House. Rather than one vote per Representative, which would just make the house a representation of the states like the Senate, instead elect the Representatives in a single five-seat race, using the Single Transferable Vote method (in which voters rank their preferences) . In the end, everybody’s vote (with possible exceptions) will have counted for one candidate or another. Then, to make the House more representative of the people, each delegate would carry forth proxy votes based on the number of votes he/she received in the election. For ease of counting, those electoral tallies could be divided by some number (as long as they’re all divided by the same number, it should still remain a good representation of the people’s will).

New idea: rough draft

I believe we should establish Precincts, which would differ from and
replace the current uses of the term. These Precincts would be drawn
by dividing each zip code into 16 Precincts of roughly equal
population, but respecting organic boundaries of traditional
neighborhoods, rivers, major roads, etc. Because the end result will
be a proxy vote, there will be no need for gerrymandering, but we’ll
get to that soon. Each zip code would be considered a Ward. There
are approximately 43000 zip codes in the US (I couldn’t find an exact
number). Approximately 30 Wards would constitute a Shire, so we’d
have approximately 1433 Shires nationally. Again, since the end result
will be proxy votes, absolute uniformity is not necessary. In turn
28-30 Shires would comprise a District, which would give us 48-50
Districts.

At each level except the federal, an assembly of about 150-300 people
would meet to discuss the issues at hand. Legislation would be
initiated only in Precinct Assemblies, but could be amended in higher
level assemblies. After discussing the issues and voting them up or
down, a delegation of up to ten persons from that assembly would be
chosen to attend the next higher level assembly. Thus 16 precincts
per ward would create ward assemblies of up to 160 delegates. 30
wards per shire, and 30 shires per district would create assemblies of
up to about 300. Roughly 50 districts would create a federal assembly
of up to 500, similar to the current House.

The delegates from each assembly would not be elected by traditional
means. Anyone who wanted to be considered as a delegate would list
her/himself as a candidate by Party affiliation, or as an independent
with a specified plank. The assembly would then vote on who to send
using a preferential choice ballot. The field would be narrowed until
it is down to ten, and every person’s vote is retained by the
candidate. So, if 100 vote for Democrat A, 70 vote for Republican A,
10 vote for Libertarian A, 9 vote for Green A, 7 vote for Democrat B
and 4 for Republican B, and there are no more votes, then that
assembly will only send those six delegates, and when Democrat A votes
at the Ward Assembly, he/she has 100 votes, and Green A has 9 votes,
etc. They each will have equal opportunity to discuss and debate, but
they will carry the votes of their supporters.

At all levels, a bill or resolution must receive at least 2/3 to pass,
but cannot fail if it has at least a majority. Measures that fall
between these two guideposts must be amended in committee until it
either passes or fails outright. As mentioned above, once passed by
the Federal Assembly (House), it will need to clear the Senate for
justice and constitutionality, or be deferred. Bills that pass both
House and Senate then must be considered as first business at next
year’s Precinct Assemblies. In order to become law, it must pass at
least 2/3 of a majority of precincts OR at least a majority of 2/3 of
precincts, and in either case, must win at least 2/3 of the total
national vote.

Start Local

If we are going to take control of our government, and transform the oligarchy into a democracy, the place to start is to mobilize to use our neighborhood associations to democratize city governments. We can use these models to show how the people are in fact capable of governing themselves, and from there progress to combine city and county democracies into statewide democratic forms that leave no room for career politicians and big-money corporate and special interests. Once we are all participating directly in governing our communities, then we will all be more prepared and able to work together to devise more democratic systems for state and federal level governments. But feel free to begin that discussion here.

Direct Control

While accountability and access give us some degree of self-governance (that is, democracy), in order to call our nation a democracy, which means rule by the people, we the people must actually be the final decision-makers on key issues. This would definitely require an amendment to the Constitution. What the exact wording or nature of that amendment might be would require a larger debate, perhaps in a Constitutional Convention, to determine what measures would require a referendum from the people, and which could be passed by Congress without a referendum. At first glance, things like the budget and judicial nominations seem like key issues on which the people should be able to weigh in directly, but the budget is usually one of those huge and tedious documents that most people would rather not delve into. But perhaps we could require Congress, upon approving a budget to prepare a stripped down referendum to be put to a national vote. It might say: the overall budget for fiscal year XXXX will be $A.bc Trillion, N% of which ($D Billion) will be spent on education, M% ($E Billion) will be spent on health care, L% ($F Billion) to be spent on highways and roads, etc. Judicial nominations, if we allow judges to continue to be appointed by the President, or whatever Executive body we may replace that position with, should be approved by the people. I also think any bill which passes Congress, but carries less than a 75% majority, should be put to the people in a referendum. Perhaps we might even say that all bills should be approved by the people. It is something to discuss.